Will AZ Geld Obama?

az-castration-tools It looks rather more likely than not that Arizona will geld Obama or, at least emasculate his ability to harm Arizona through his barely quasi-legal Executive Orders or directive from his DoJ. Last week on March 10, 2015 Arizona’s House of Representatives voted in favor of House Bill 2368 (HB 2368), which bans the use of AZ personnel or monies to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any of them.

So, politically speaking in Arizona, it looks probable that Obama’s testicles will be tied off, wither and rot, and fall off.

Obama supporters and Statists, have quickly put up the spurious and ignorant argument that HB 2368 violates the US Constitution’s, Article VI, Clause 2 (the “Supremacy Clause”):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

But even a passing knowledge of SCOTUS jurisprudence and Constitutional Law shows that Arizona’s HB 2368 in no way violates the Supremacy Clause because, supremacy or not, the SCOTUS via the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” set forth in their 1842 Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 1981 Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 1992 New York v. United States, and 1997 Printz v. United States decisions has unequivocally stated that the federal government cannot legally commandeer legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program by demanding that those States’ governments to undertake targeted, affirmative, coercive duties.

Oh please pay special attention to Prigg v. Pennsylvania, as it stated that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

In other, simpler words, the Federal government cannot legally compel any of the States to spend their resources in the furtherance of any federal mandate, regulation, or even law. The Supremacy Clause ensures that the States can’t contravene federal edicts but the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine requires that the federal government enforce those edicts with federal resources instead of compelling the States to use theirs to do so.

Hence, in point of legal fact, Arizona didn’t need to limit HB 2368 to merely those edicts spawned within the Executive. The bill would be equally valid on resting upon proven, sound legal grounds if it had include legitimate federal laws enacted by Congress as well.

Now it just remains to be seen how many other states shall go reaching for their gelding knives or similar tools…

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

So Right And So Wrong

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 University of Arizona (UA) student Dean Saxton aka Brother Dean Samuel royally pissed off a lot of fellow students when he counter-protested their well-publicized Take Back The Night event, carrying a placard that read, “You Deserve Rape.”

Saxton / Samuel - You Deserve Rape
If You’re Asking For It, You Deserve To Get It

Essentially, the UA junior who is studying civics and religious studies believes that if women dress and act “immodestly” they’re asking to be sexually assaulted.

Saxton, a junior studying classics and religious studies, said his sermon was meant to convey that “if you dress like a whore, act like a whore, you’re probably going to get raped.”

“I think that girls that dress and act like it,” Saxton said, “they should realize that they do have partial responsibility, because I believe that they’re pretty much asking for it.”

UA’s Dean of Students Office received stacks of written complaints, emails and multiple phone calls demanding official reprisals against Saxton. Somewhat shockingly, the refused to do anything against the controversial student preacher under the grounds of his being protected speech.

Why Saxton Is Right

Despite the outrage of many, Saxton is right in his belief that women who dress in an overly sexualized manner, those who overtly and publicly act in a commensurate manner, and/or those who just fail to display certain basic forms of common sense are setting themselves up to be sexually assaulted. As such, they must and do share some of the responsibility for such an attack happening to them in particular.

Like it or not, when women dress or act in such a manner as to be labeled “slutty” or “whorish” those women have lowered their value in the eyes of many and dehumanized themselves in the eyes of some. They’ve also turned themselves into “soft targets” which will likely cause sexual predators to choose them as victims over other women.

If women are truly to be considered the equals of men then they must be held to the same standards of personal responsibility as their male counterparts. Since the many variations of, “He was asking for it,” don’t bring outrage when some guy does something untoward and/or stupid and gets beat down, the same standard must be applied by society to women as well.

Why Saxton Is Wrong

Firstly and most importantly, no woman deserves to be raped because of how she dresses or because she acts in a manner that would by normative values indicate that she was promiscuous. Like it or not, statements to the effect that these women deserve to be sexually assaulted de facto excuse the rapist(s) in question.

What is worse it that this idea was long ago co-opted by defense attorneys and used in defense of their rapist clients.  These lawyers have not only enjoyed a certain amount of success by attacking the moral character of rape victims, they’ve fostered a court environment that makes women almost as afraid of reporting rape as being raped.

To put it bluntly, while a woman ethically and practically must bear some measure of responsibility for the negative consequences of her choices, such arguments have no place in a court of law.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |

SCOTUS To Hear SB 1070

Over what were likely alternately strident and petulant objections from the Obama Regime the SCOTUS has agreed to hear Arizona’s appeal of a lower federal court’s blocking of key provisions of AZ’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070).

Worse for Obama and his handlers, his hand puppet Justice Elena Kagan has been forced to recuse herself due to her having been involved in the administration’s initial legal opposition to the law as Obama’s solicitor general.

Given that the SCOTUS is also currently hearing the Obama Regime’s continued appeals against Arizona’s 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act and is expected to uphold a lower court’s ruling in favor of Arizona, things are not looking well for Obama, his handlers, and the illegal immigrants whose legal relatives they’re pandering to.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

Real Immigration Reform!

Judge's Gavel on American FlagThe US Supreme Court has dealt Obama, his Liberals, and the illegal immigrant filth and their treasonous enablers a serious, though sadly non-fatal blow. The SCOTUS has, in a 5 – 3 decision, upheld Arizona’s illegal-worker law, the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007.

It has been dubbed the “Business Death Penalty” because it allows Arizona to shutdown businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Specifically it allows Arizona to suspend the business license of any company that knowingly hires illegal immigrants for a minimum of 10 days upon the first offense and permanently upon the second or later offense. It also mandates that companies must use the federal governments E-Verify system to validate hirees’ employment eligibility.

This is the true beginning of immigration reform – real immigration reform – because it strikes at the festering core of illegal immigration by punishing those within America who enable, aid, abet, and profit off of these criminal foreign invaders.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Searching For Outrage

In the wake of Loughners shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and 19 other people six of whom were killed, including a 9 year-old girl in Tucson, AZ on Saturday, January 8, 2010 I’m left in an odd quandary. Truth be told, I’m searching for outrage within myself but finding only a mild sadness, a lingering frustration, and more than a little ennui.

Obviously, normative American society says that I should be outraged, especially since a child was murdered. That point was made quite clear, though no such clarification was needed.

I am going to unfriend you on FB, dont take it personally I am sure you will not. If you cannot muster up feelings for a 9 year old child as collateral damage, then my unfriending wont ruffle a hair on your head.

The somewhat worrisome thing is that I can’t seem to summon up any significant feelings for the murdered Christina Taylor Green or any of Loughner’s other victims. I can’t even seem to call up more than a certain level of disgust with “opportunistic feeding” that been done by politicians, demagogues, and pundits in the wake of the massacre.

So I’m left searching for outrage but not finding any.

Tags: | | | | | | | |