Soooo…did you hear the joke about 9/11 and the terrorist attacks? No? Well I did. It was told at a “roast” of Barack Hussein Obama by a twisted minded comedienne at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. For some reason, I don’t find jokes about 9/11 funny…at all…but Obama does! He laughed and laughed. Let me illustrate for you just how uncaring and arrogant this president is…
Wanda Sykes (the twisted minded comedienne) was trying to be funny and said the following: "Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you're saying, 'I hope America fails', you're, like, 'I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq'. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason”.
"He's not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight."
She then concluded: "Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."
Obama laughed, took a drink of his water, and continued laughing. What was he supposed to do, stand up to her and tell her that it’s not funny? DAMN RIGHT. If he cannot stand up to an ignorant, racist, hateful WOMAN, do you think he can stand up to some of the greatest terrorists known to man? This sure doesn’t say much for the backbone of this president. Is he intimidated into silence by this stupid comedienne or in agreement with her that 9/11 is fodder for jokes? I think it’s more than a little bit of both.
So liberals joke about the worst attack on our country. I guess they find thousands of American lives destroyed amusing. But wait! I have heard from some of my liberal friends that “she was poking fun at Rush Limbaugh, NOT at the people killed on 9/11!” So, if I tell a joke about Hitler and the Jewish people killed in the Holocaust, no matter how hurtful it is, can I say “Oh! I was making fun of Hitler, not the Jews that were killed”. Or how about I make a joke out of slavery, then say, “hey, I was poking fun at Plantation owners!” Not funny is it, you liberal sycophants?
I know of no conservatives who think that anything about 9/11 is humorous. Liberals embrace anything said or done by Obama, no matter whom it hurts.
This is not about defending Rush. If she had said most anything else about him, or any other commentator, I would defend her right to attack a public figure. But to play on the despair of the victims of 9/11, the dead and the families themselves, is despicable. How much lower can libs go, laughing at the murder of thousands of Americans? It doesn’t get any lower than that.
American liberals…the classless of our society.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Obama, Senator Specter, and the Embrace of Slime
Last week, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania, decided to switch parties from Republican to Democrat. Just a few short weeks ago, on March 18th, during a press conference he said, “To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket”. However on April 28th, Specter stated that “As the Republican party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic party”.
So what happened in those few short weeks? Did the “red states” decide to secede from the Union? Did the GOP authorize the killing of millions of people? Did the Republican party take over control of the country? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nothing at ALL happened with the Republican party except they seemed to reject left leaning Arlen Specter and polls show that a true conservative was beating the pants off of him.
Specter himself during the April 28th press conference made the following statement; “I have surveyed the sentiments of the Republican party in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak”.
So, by his own admission, he abandoned his party for one that he thought he could possibly win. Excuse me? So you are at odds with them, why? Notice no mention of specifics. Just a statement that he could not win with Republicans, so he decided to switch sides.
Now all of this is interesting (and disgusting) enough, but then, the Democrats embraced him. Obama himself said, “Today I have the honor of standing next to the newest Democratic senator from Pennsylvania”.
So, Obama, you are HONORED to stand beside a deserter of his party, a traitor to his constituents, and a thief of the GOP’s money? Obama, you sure do keep yourself in good company, huh? Well, Democrats, you can have him. He is slime, but I would expect nothing else from someone that Obama embraces. I can’t imagine the GOP slobbering over someone who has no qualms whatsoever about being all of the things listed above. We have more pride and more respect for ourselves than that.
Deserter: A person who leaves or runs away. Check
Traitor: One who violates his allegiance. Check
Thief: One who steals without force. Check
Senator Specter ran on the Republican ticket and because he was an extremely moderate Republican, he won. Citizens voted for him because he portrayed himself to be slightly right of moderate. They trusted him to protect their integrity, but he has proven to them that he has none. He also took lots and lots of money from the Republican party for his election bids. This would be equivalent to me raising money for Mercy Ministries and then deciding to give that money to Planned Parenthood because I hope to get a better job there. It’s repugnant, immoral, and completely liberalistic…but I repeat myself.
Here’s the catch…the reason that Senator Specter switched parties was that a real conservative was challenging him in the primary. THIS is what should scare the liberals. Since the election of Obama, and the way that he has tried to socialize this country, the conservative movement has come out in full force. 2010 is going to be huge for conservatives. Many democrats (like Arlen Specter) and several left leaning Republicans (like John McCain), are going to be handed their walking papers. This is a fact. This is why Specter jumped ship. He knew he could not challenge a true conservative because the people, after just a few short months, are sick and tired of the libs trashing America to other countries. They are sick of the out of control spending, the push for socialization and fallacy behind global warming.
Rachel Maddow and Bawny Fwank are touting the demise of the GOP. The amusing thing is, that with the defection of 30 year Senator Arlen Specter, they should be afraid…very, very, afraid. He did not leave because he was at odds with the party. In his own words, he left because his prospects are bleak. Even in left leaning Pennsylvania.
Libs, we have regrouped. You will not have the minority population coming out in droves for the next election (like the last one) and the country is already tired of your socialist dictators. We are stronger than I have ever been aware of in my life. A resurgence is coming…a bible clinging, gun toting, vet loving, right wing extremist resurgence.
So what happened in those few short weeks? Did the “red states” decide to secede from the Union? Did the GOP authorize the killing of millions of people? Did the Republican party take over control of the country? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nothing at ALL happened with the Republican party except they seemed to reject left leaning Arlen Specter and polls show that a true conservative was beating the pants off of him.
Specter himself during the April 28th press conference made the following statement; “I have surveyed the sentiments of the Republican party in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak”.
So, by his own admission, he abandoned his party for one that he thought he could possibly win. Excuse me? So you are at odds with them, why? Notice no mention of specifics. Just a statement that he could not win with Republicans, so he decided to switch sides.
Now all of this is interesting (and disgusting) enough, but then, the Democrats embraced him. Obama himself said, “Today I have the honor of standing next to the newest Democratic senator from Pennsylvania”.
So, Obama, you are HONORED to stand beside a deserter of his party, a traitor to his constituents, and a thief of the GOP’s money? Obama, you sure do keep yourself in good company, huh? Well, Democrats, you can have him. He is slime, but I would expect nothing else from someone that Obama embraces. I can’t imagine the GOP slobbering over someone who has no qualms whatsoever about being all of the things listed above. We have more pride and more respect for ourselves than that.
Deserter: A person who leaves or runs away. Check
Traitor: One who violates his allegiance. Check
Thief: One who steals without force. Check
Senator Specter ran on the Republican ticket and because he was an extremely moderate Republican, he won. Citizens voted for him because he portrayed himself to be slightly right of moderate. They trusted him to protect their integrity, but he has proven to them that he has none. He also took lots and lots of money from the Republican party for his election bids. This would be equivalent to me raising money for Mercy Ministries and then deciding to give that money to Planned Parenthood because I hope to get a better job there. It’s repugnant, immoral, and completely liberalistic…but I repeat myself.
Here’s the catch…the reason that Senator Specter switched parties was that a real conservative was challenging him in the primary. THIS is what should scare the liberals. Since the election of Obama, and the way that he has tried to socialize this country, the conservative movement has come out in full force. 2010 is going to be huge for conservatives. Many democrats (like Arlen Specter) and several left leaning Republicans (like John McCain), are going to be handed their walking papers. This is a fact. This is why Specter jumped ship. He knew he could not challenge a true conservative because the people, after just a few short months, are sick and tired of the libs trashing America to other countries. They are sick of the out of control spending, the push for socialization and fallacy behind global warming.
Rachel Maddow and Bawny Fwank are touting the demise of the GOP. The amusing thing is, that with the defection of 30 year Senator Arlen Specter, they should be afraid…very, very, afraid. He did not leave because he was at odds with the party. In his own words, he left because his prospects are bleak. Even in left leaning Pennsylvania.
Libs, we have regrouped. You will not have the minority population coming out in droves for the next election (like the last one) and the country is already tired of your socialist dictators. We are stronger than I have ever been aware of in my life. A resurgence is coming…a bible clinging, gun toting, vet loving, right wing extremist resurgence.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Obama and the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices
Last night, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced that he would be retiring in June. He has just turned 69, but has said numerous times that he is sick of Washington life and really wants to go home and live a normal life. Luckily for him, he still has a home. He was one of the justices that ruled in favor of the "Eminent Domain" case (Kelo v. City of New London) that evicted an 88 year old woman from the home that she had lived in her entire life (among other residents). They tore her house down to build a resort, but the company that was fronting it went bankrupt, so the land is sitting there with nothing on it because no one else wants it.
Conservatives knew there was a likelihood that Obama would be in the position of appointing 2 Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 76 and in failing health, John Paul Stevens is 89. Both of these justices are ultra liberal so there really would not be a change to the make up of the court. David Souter was appointed by Pres. George H. W. Bush as a moderate to right leaning justice, but he has proven that he is almost as left leaning as Justice Ginsberg.
There are basically two views on who should be on the Supreme Court. There are the Constitutionalists, (usually conservative) that believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, favoring limited Government, as prescribed by the Constitution. The other side is that of Judicial activism (usually liberal) that believe it is acceptable to legislate from the bench and that rulings can be based on personal ideology. The Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate. That is why we have a legislature. Our founding fathers spelled out in the Constitution how this is supposed to work.
For instance, if part our Constitution needs to be changed, abolishing of slavery for example, that change cannot be legislated from the Supreme Court. That needs to be, per our Constitution, changed by Amendment. Our Constitution is very specific about these matters, and I would challenge any and all of you to actually read and look into the law of our land, the United States Constitution. Only 3% of the US population has ever read the whole text, and I would bet that a small percentage of them have bothered to really look into anything that they do not understand.
Now to my point. Obama is judicial activist. While campaigning, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
This goes completely against what our Constitution spells out. For those of you who consider our Constitution outdated, I say to you, if that's the case, then we have NO LAW of our land. You cannot pick and choose which parts you like; it's either all or none. Our founding fathers were very wise. (I recently read a book titled "Something That Will Surprise the World: The Essential Writings of Our Founding Fathers". It is a book of actual letters of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison among others, and will blow you away.) They knew that the world would change and that we as a country would evolve. They put the amendment process in the Constitution so that one person, the President, or even 9 people, the Supreme Court, could not make decisions that explicitly went against the Constitution.
When Obama was running for president, I found the following writings extremely informative. They are short and to the point.
On Judicial Activism: Legislating from the bench is a good way to describe judicial activism. Judicial activism occurs when a Judge or Justice decides an issue based on personal or political ideology or pressure from special interests instead of abiding by the Constitution and/or previous precedent. The United States has a system of checks and balances to insure that one branch of the federal government will not become too powerful. Under the separation of powers doctrine, only Congress has the power to legislate. Judicial activism violates that separation of powers by effectively creating new law that often affects the entire nation instead of settling the particular case at hand.
It makes sense that the judiciary, which is appointed rather than elected and held accountable by the people, does not have the ability to legislate. When judicial activism occurs, it is a usurpation of power. In other words, judicial activism means a Justice oversteps the jurisdiction of the Court or creates a ruling that radically diverges from common law, jurisprudence, and the intent of the Constitution. Judicial activism may also be a case of Judges or Justices overruling existing law or creating legal doctrines without precedent or support, which undermine or recreate policy, usually social policy.
While a judge who engages in judicial activism does not technically write a law, he or she often creates the same effect by handing down a ruling that allows or prohibits a certain action. Take abortion, a very controversial issue, for example. Roe v. Wade created a right for women to have abortions, which soon became the law of the land. There is no rationale for such a right, just as there is no support found in the Constitution for a nationwide ban.
Abortion is a state's rights issue, because it is not addressed in the Constitution, and therefore should have been decided by the states individually. Whether you agree with abortion or not isn't the question, nor is party affiliation. Both sides are guilty of judicial activism. The real issue is that one court does not have the right to decide the rule of law for all states, when it comes to issues not covered by the Constitution.
The same is true when it comes to marriage, and many other hot button issues. The Constitution does not grant such power to the Court or the Federal Government, and therefore these issues are to be decided by the states and by the people, not through judicial activism. The only other appropriate alternative is to amend the Constitution to address those issues not already covered.
On Constitutionalism: A constitutionalist is often known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. While the latter term typically refers to judges and justices, it is also used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the Constitution. A constitutionalist favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution. In the beliefs of the constitutionalist, such a government should be small not only in size but also in scope and in power.There are different principles espoused by various constitutionalist organizations as well as individuals. Two of the main schools of thought are those of the textualist and originalist. While the two share some beliefs, their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted differs to some degree. Yet, no self-proclaimed constitutionalist believes in judicial activism, even it would benefit his or her cause.
It has long been held that the Constitution as well as laws and other legally binding documents should be interpreted by the definitions of the terms used at the time they are written. The constitutionalist embraces this principle. It is found in both textualism and originalism.
Texualists believe in as literal an interpretation as possible, although it is not always feasible to construe each precept in a completely literal manner. To do so would allow no limits against such things as "arms," which are protected by the Second Amendment. This would then allow the average citizen to legally own and use nearly any weapon known to man, including weapons of mass destruction.
Many people believe that there should be some reasonable limits even on rights that are deemed inalienable. The right itself, the right to defend oneself, is what is inalienable. Yet, many people don't accept it to mean that the methods used should have no limits. The same can be said of free speech and other rights, although some who hold strictly to the constitutionalist philosophy disagree.Originalists also hold that textualism is important, although they place more reliance on the framers' intent. The original intent is then more important than the precise words used and is often learned by reading the Constitution along with other writings by the framers at the time. The Federalists Papers are but one of the favored sources of the constitutionalist. To avoid extrapolations often based in semantics, as has been the case too often where judicial activists are able to provide their own interpretations, originalism demands that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the Founders sought.
The very core of our Country is at stake with these appointments. Barack Obama has said that he will not do what our Constitution demands. He wants to appoint judges that instead of interpreting, "have empathy". That is not what the law dictates. It is not what OUR LAW dictates. This is a very dangerous path, one that could affect the lives of our children and grandchildren, and possibly even their children. So, before you go bashing the republicans for wanting to block Obama’s appointments, please look into these two schools of thought. And I hope that you will find that our Constitution is just as beautiful, important, and carefully scripted as I think it is. If Obama does what he has said he will do, he will be flicking his cigarette at our country and putting it out with the toe of his shoe.
Conservatives knew there was a likelihood that Obama would be in the position of appointing 2 Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 76 and in failing health, John Paul Stevens is 89. Both of these justices are ultra liberal so there really would not be a change to the make up of the court. David Souter was appointed by Pres. George H. W. Bush as a moderate to right leaning justice, but he has proven that he is almost as left leaning as Justice Ginsberg.
There are basically two views on who should be on the Supreme Court. There are the Constitutionalists, (usually conservative) that believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, favoring limited Government, as prescribed by the Constitution. The other side is that of Judicial activism (usually liberal) that believe it is acceptable to legislate from the bench and that rulings can be based on personal ideology. The Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate. That is why we have a legislature. Our founding fathers spelled out in the Constitution how this is supposed to work.
For instance, if part our Constitution needs to be changed, abolishing of slavery for example, that change cannot be legislated from the Supreme Court. That needs to be, per our Constitution, changed by Amendment. Our Constitution is very specific about these matters, and I would challenge any and all of you to actually read and look into the law of our land, the United States Constitution. Only 3% of the US population has ever read the whole text, and I would bet that a small percentage of them have bothered to really look into anything that they do not understand.
Now to my point. Obama is judicial activist. While campaigning, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
This goes completely against what our Constitution spells out. For those of you who consider our Constitution outdated, I say to you, if that's the case, then we have NO LAW of our land. You cannot pick and choose which parts you like; it's either all or none. Our founding fathers were very wise. (I recently read a book titled "Something That Will Surprise the World: The Essential Writings of Our Founding Fathers". It is a book of actual letters of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison among others, and will blow you away.) They knew that the world would change and that we as a country would evolve. They put the amendment process in the Constitution so that one person, the President, or even 9 people, the Supreme Court, could not make decisions that explicitly went against the Constitution.
When Obama was running for president, I found the following writings extremely informative. They are short and to the point.
On Judicial Activism: Legislating from the bench is a good way to describe judicial activism. Judicial activism occurs when a Judge or Justice decides an issue based on personal or political ideology or pressure from special interests instead of abiding by the Constitution and/or previous precedent. The United States has a system of checks and balances to insure that one branch of the federal government will not become too powerful. Under the separation of powers doctrine, only Congress has the power to legislate. Judicial activism violates that separation of powers by effectively creating new law that often affects the entire nation instead of settling the particular case at hand.
It makes sense that the judiciary, which is appointed rather than elected and held accountable by the people, does not have the ability to legislate. When judicial activism occurs, it is a usurpation of power. In other words, judicial activism means a Justice oversteps the jurisdiction of the Court or creates a ruling that radically diverges from common law, jurisprudence, and the intent of the Constitution. Judicial activism may also be a case of Judges or Justices overruling existing law or creating legal doctrines without precedent or support, which undermine or recreate policy, usually social policy.
While a judge who engages in judicial activism does not technically write a law, he or she often creates the same effect by handing down a ruling that allows or prohibits a certain action. Take abortion, a very controversial issue, for example. Roe v. Wade created a right for women to have abortions, which soon became the law of the land. There is no rationale for such a right, just as there is no support found in the Constitution for a nationwide ban.
Abortion is a state's rights issue, because it is not addressed in the Constitution, and therefore should have been decided by the states individually. Whether you agree with abortion or not isn't the question, nor is party affiliation. Both sides are guilty of judicial activism. The real issue is that one court does not have the right to decide the rule of law for all states, when it comes to issues not covered by the Constitution.
The same is true when it comes to marriage, and many other hot button issues. The Constitution does not grant such power to the Court or the Federal Government, and therefore these issues are to be decided by the states and by the people, not through judicial activism. The only other appropriate alternative is to amend the Constitution to address those issues not already covered.
On Constitutionalism: A constitutionalist is often known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. While the latter term typically refers to judges and justices, it is also used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the Constitution. A constitutionalist favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution. In the beliefs of the constitutionalist, such a government should be small not only in size but also in scope and in power.There are different principles espoused by various constitutionalist organizations as well as individuals. Two of the main schools of thought are those of the textualist and originalist. While the two share some beliefs, their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted differs to some degree. Yet, no self-proclaimed constitutionalist believes in judicial activism, even it would benefit his or her cause.
It has long been held that the Constitution as well as laws and other legally binding documents should be interpreted by the definitions of the terms used at the time they are written. The constitutionalist embraces this principle. It is found in both textualism and originalism.
Texualists believe in as literal an interpretation as possible, although it is not always feasible to construe each precept in a completely literal manner. To do so would allow no limits against such things as "arms," which are protected by the Second Amendment. This would then allow the average citizen to legally own and use nearly any weapon known to man, including weapons of mass destruction.
Many people believe that there should be some reasonable limits even on rights that are deemed inalienable. The right itself, the right to defend oneself, is what is inalienable. Yet, many people don't accept it to mean that the methods used should have no limits. The same can be said of free speech and other rights, although some who hold strictly to the constitutionalist philosophy disagree.Originalists also hold that textualism is important, although they place more reliance on the framers' intent. The original intent is then more important than the precise words used and is often learned by reading the Constitution along with other writings by the framers at the time. The Federalists Papers are but one of the favored sources of the constitutionalist. To avoid extrapolations often based in semantics, as has been the case too often where judicial activists are able to provide their own interpretations, originalism demands that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the Founders sought.
The very core of our Country is at stake with these appointments. Barack Obama has said that he will not do what our Constitution demands. He wants to appoint judges that instead of interpreting, "have empathy". That is not what the law dictates. It is not what OUR LAW dictates. This is a very dangerous path, one that could affect the lives of our children and grandchildren, and possibly even their children. So, before you go bashing the republicans for wanting to block Obama’s appointments, please look into these two schools of thought. And I hope that you will find that our Constitution is just as beautiful, important, and carefully scripted as I think it is. If Obama does what he has said he will do, he will be flicking his cigarette at our country and putting it out with the toe of his shoe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)