Reflections From a Murky Pond

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: Arizona | Courts | Federal Courts | Federalism | Immigration | Law | National Security | Obama | Politics | Subsidiarity | US Supreme Court

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 13th, 2011 at 10:40 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

In any society that hopes to maintain its liberty and avoid tyranny it is necessary for its people to instill fear in its political leadership. In best case scenarios this needs only be the fear of the consequences of misbehavior. In other all too common situations it is necessary to fill the politicians with the fear of reprisals by the people.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

– Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

America is at a point where it is dealing with a middle case scenario where politicians need to be instilled with a combination of preventative and punitive fears.

Fortunately, Americans have exercised some of the means at their disposal to instill the needed fear in the political elite. They banded together as the TEA Parties and elected representatives to Congress who were of strong purpose and character.

In the degenerate system that America’s federal government has devolved into, honest and patriotic men an women who have chosen to shoulder the burden of providing correction to that system and who are willing to disregard the personal cost to themselves for doing so are an acute source of fear for all the professional politicians who are heavily invested, often literally, in maintaining the current broken status quo.

Nothing scares professional politicians more than actual statesmen, and nothing scares the Liberals and Progressives more than American statesmen, even though they whine and rant when their own sort don’t behave similarly.

Tags: America | Debt | Deficit | Democrats | Fear | Federalism | Freedom | Instilling Fear | Leftists | Liberals | Liberty | Media Bias | Patriots | Politics | Pork | Pork Barrel | Progressives | Republicans | Spending | Statism | Statists | Subsidiarity | Tea Parties

This entry was posted on Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 11:09 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

America’s anger and our rejection of President Obama’s agenda and how it was enacted by Pelosi’s and Reid’s Congress swept the Republican Party back into office across the nation. The GOP fared very well in the 2010 elections thanks to this repudiation of Statism, Socialism, and Liberalism.

What is important for these Republicans to remember is that this does not mean that Americans endorse that which has seemingly become the GOP’s agenda over the past few decades. We did not remove one set of Statists in order to replace them with another.

We, The People Are Watching; Remember That

Oh yes! It would be very wise for the Republicans to remember that the American people are watching them. It would also serve the GOP well to keep it firmly fixed in their minds that we have given them their marching orders and that their only job is to carry them out.

Failure would be quite costly since the voters will certainly punish such errancy in the 2012 elections. Failing to try to follow the will of the People could be far, far more costly for the Republican politicians and for those close to them.

Tags: 2010 Elections | 2012 Elections | America | Conservatives | Federalism | Freedom | GOP | Politics | Republicans | Statism | Subsidiarity | Tea Parties

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 16th, 2010 at 2:03 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Friday, May 29, 2010 President Obama demanded that the Us Supreme Court review and set aside an Arizona illegal immigration law. His federal regime thinks that it is inappropriate for the individual states to have such laws.

Obama’s administration, in a brief submitted by Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, said federal law should preempt state efforts.

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the “careful balance” that Congress struck in federal immigration law.

The act in question is not the strict new Arizona law that President Obama and other members of his administration have criticized. That measure authorizes police to question the immigration status anyone who appears to be in the country illegally.

The law being challenged, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, imposes tougher sanctions than federal law for hiring illegal workers. If the court chooses to hear the case, its ruling could show how receptive the justices would be to arguments that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility that cannot be usurped by the states.

It’s somewhat interesting that Obama has chosen to attack the State of Arizona over this particular law, Legal Arizona Workers Act which was enacted in 2008, rather than over the other, more recent anti-illegal immigration laws that Arizona, in the wake of continued willful failure by the federal government to protect and defend America’s borders, has been forced to enact.

One is forced to conclude that Obama, ever a fan of any nation except America, is bowing before the will of Mexico’s Felipe Calderon, whose failed government has a vested interest in keeping these illegal immigrants employed within America. Obama’s timing is especially suspicious since it comes so soon after Calderon instructed Obama on how to use America’s National Guard along the Mexican border.

What’s worse for America though is the disturbing trend being shown by Obama’s regime. President Obama has a very dangerous attitude towards the law, especially the intersection of federal and state laws. Currently he is jabbering that Arizona’s law should not “usurp” federal authority because it stricter than federal law – which Obama refuses to enforce in the first place. In the recent past, however, he has refused to exert federal authority when a state’s – California in this case – laws were looser and in direct contravention of federal law.

Essentially, President Obama’s philosophy seems to be that, if he likes a federal law, he will use whatever means he can dream up to prevent the State’s from having sterner and more effective laws. Conversely, if he doesn’t like a law, he will bend over backwards not to exert federal authority to enforce it even if a state passes laws that directly conflict with- and attempt to nullify it.

This is a philosophy that is inherently dangerous and is an existential threat to America as a Constitutional Republic. Anyone who adheres to such a philosophy is an enemy of America and has no rightful business being allowed to survive within America’s borders much less fill, and thereby foul, the position of President of the United States.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down.  😉

Tags: 10th Amendment | America | Arizona | Crime | Federalism | Immigration | Mexico | Obama | Politics | Subsidiarity | The Constitution

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 29th, 2010 at 2:30 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Professor Jonathan Turley is an attorney, a legal scholar mostly specializing in Liberal interpretations of constitutional law, and a frequent commentator in many of the Leftist MSM’s papers and shows.  He also maintains an interesting blog, Res ipsa loquitur. Prof. Turley and I rarely agree on anything. That is why it is odd that he and I are in agreement on one of the more disturbing aspects of ObamaCare.

With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of states’ rights would be left if it prevailed.

— Prof. Jonathon Turley
Is the Individual Mandate Constitutional?

Think about Prof. Turley’s statement, “If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens.” To any true American, one who would guard his liberty and that of his progeny, that is a chilling statement made all the more so because the reasoning mind can find little in the way of factual argument to refute it.

At this time (April 2, 2010) at least 14 States have filed federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s health insurance reconstruction legislation colloquially known as ObamaCare. So it is obvious that others besides myself agree with Turley’s estimation of the situation.

If the Gods are at all mercifully inclined towards America, these lawsuits will result in a key provision of ObamaCare, the individual health insurance mandate, being struck down on Constitutional grounds and the whole legislation having to go back to Congress in order to create a new – hopefully wiser and more American – rendition of the legislation.

So – oddly, Professor Turley and I are, for once, in agreement. It should be, but isn’t any longer, even odder that the one circumstance where two staunch proponents of differing views on so many issues can reach agreement is in opposition to President Obama and his agenda.

Tags: 10th Amendment | America | Congress | Federalism | Freedom | Healthcare | Law | Obama | Pelosi | Politics | Reid | States Rights | Subsidiarity | The Constitution | Turley | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Friday, April 2nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.