McCain’s Canal Zone Birth
Prompts Queries About Whether
That Rules Him Out
by Carl Hulse - February 28th, 2008 - The New York Times
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.Fresh from their humiliation over trying to enmesh McCain in a sex controversy with no evidence at all, The New York Times is now trying to raise the idea that John McCain is not a "natural born" citizen and is thus ineligible for the job.
This attack has two advantages for the "Times". They can create uncertainty about McCain and they can pretend that the Constitution needs modern judicial interpretation in order to be meaningful. Like most liberal institutions, giving more power to the nine unelected judicial tyrants on the Supreme Court is considered by them a good thing.
Hopefully they will be as quickly humiliated over this concept as they were over the sex scandal. It is contemptible to try and pretend that a man who was born of two patriotic American citizens, who were stationed overseas due to being on military assignement, is not a citizen. It is not a close call despite their finding some stupid law professor to babble on about why she sees it as an important question.
It is an insult to the very idea of American citizenship. The liberals in North Vietnam had no doubt that McCain was a "natural born" American when they tortured him for five years while he served his nation. These same liberal law professors are overwhelminly of the opinion that an atheistic socialist from a foreign land, dedicated to our destruction, can sneak across our border and have a baby that same day who automatically becomes a citizen. They claim this because on this issue they say they adhere to the meaning of words and not intent. At least that is their claim on this issue.
However these same liberal law professors are equally adamant that the meaning of words is not important, but some vague intent they can conjure up is, when they want to ignore the words. Like when they invent a right to abortion that goes past "viability" of the infant. This right is absolute because they "say it is". It even embraces killing a child that is 90% born during "partial birth abortion".
It is time we stop having respect for the "rule of judges" and return to the "rule of law". That rule must pay much more attention to what the people think laws mean. Not what the left wing radical judges and professors think it means.
John McCain is a "natural born" American citizen. The children of illegal aliens are not. Our courts are incompetent to rule. Please do not forget. The Supreme Court tyrants were the buffoons who ruled in Dred Scott that owning slaves was a Constitutional right. Who can respect an insitution that gets such an obvious issue that wrong?
Second Man Freed By Judge Held On Sex Rap
by Laurel J. Sweet and Jessica Fargen - February 21st, 2008 - Boston Herald
The sexual predator who was busted this week after allegedly stalking a woman inside a Braintree bookstore bathroom was set free by the same judge who sprang another convicted pervert accused of raping a child in a New Bedford library last month.That statement is typical of the bizarre behavior of our arrogant judges. The statement is totally at odds with the court record. That indicates the judge was "ignoring three expert psychologists who found the Level 3 offender an 'extremely sexually dangerous' predator."
Moses declined comment yesterday because of Flavell’s pending case, but a statement released by a court spokeswoman said, “The February 2006 decision . . . was based upon substantial testimony of multiple experts who said that Mr. Flavell was not sexually dangerous.”
Judges don't think evidence matters though. The general attitude is "justice " is what they say it is. "Truth" is therefore what they say it is as well. The arrogance of this attitude is the reason we no longer get justice in American courts. The "rule of law" means nothing. Our courts are dominated by the "rule of judges". This is how they suppress clear evidence of guilt and free sexual predators (as well as freeing murderers and other criminals) as they decide. Their disdain for public opinion is amazing. Few judges are not regularly guilty of abuse of their power. Even egregious abuse . . . as in this case . . . is rarely overturned.
Judges Hold No Rank In Military Chain Of Command
by Phyllis Schlafly - February 18th, 2008 - Townhall.com
Federal courts in San Francisco and in Los Angeles just ordered the U.S. Navy to limit its use of sonar, the underwater technology essential for tracking enemy submarines and detecting the ocean floor. These rulings tie the Navy's hands and are the latest outrage committed by judicial supremacists.I still think that the way to rein in the judicial tyrants is through enactment of my proposed Marbury versus Madison amendment to the Constitution. This would re-instate the standard that ruling a law unconstitutional can only be done by a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. No single judge could do this.
The 2nd Amendment's Day In Court
by Oliver North - February 15th, 2008 - Townhall.com
WASHINGTON -- When the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the toughest gun control law in the nation in 1976, the city fathers -- according to what they said at the time -- believed they were making our nation's capital a safer place. The measure failed miserably. Since passage, the murder rate in the District has skyrocketed by more than 200 percent. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance both to make our capital safer and to ensure that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is enshrined as an individual right for every law-abiding American.After Kelo, I am not holding my breath. As this article notes, our own Department of Justice is ambivalent about protecting the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. This is while a Republican is President. With the tyrannical position of Democrats, that our Constitution guaratees rights to government militias against the people, there is little likelihood that the DOJ would not come out in favor of the Washinton DC law pre-empting the Constitution if a Democrat was currently President. Banning guns is the official position of the Democrat Party.
We still have a majority of 5 liberals on the court. Whether the 4 conservatives can find one liberal who cares about our Constitution to side with them is the entire question. I pray they can find one. If not, we are headed down a road to tyranny that will only end in our second civil war.
The Justices are starting to understand how angry the people are becoming. Whatever the decision is, the court will try to waffle the wording and get their way without angering the American people who believe in the Constitution or the liberals who want to throw it out.
A Truth Obama Won't Tell
by Steve Chapman - February 3rd, 2008 - Creators.com
On Thursday, The Washington Times reported that in 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Obama came out for decriminalizing marijuana use. That usually means eliminating jail sentences and arrest records for anyone caught with a small amount for personal use, treating it more like a traffic offense than a violent crime. But in a show of hands at a debate last fall, he indicated that he opposed the idea.The war on drugs is a war on the poor and minorities. As noted in this article, 100 million people, over 25% of our population, have used marijuana. That includes a significant number of our elected public officials. A million or so of the 100 milliion have criminal records as a result of getting caught for using marijauna. Similar numbers apply to crack and cocaine.
When confronted on the issue by the Times, however, the senator defended his original ground. His campaign said he has "always" supported decriminalization.
It's a brave position, and therefore exceedingly rare among practicing politicians. Which may be why it didn't last. Before the day was over, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying he thinks "we are sending far too many first-time non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time" but "does not believe that we should treat offenses involving marijuana with a simple fine or just by confiscating the drug." Recently, he had told a New Hampshire newspaper, "I'm not in favor of decriminalization."
This episode reveals that as a candidate, Obama is more fond of bold rhetoric than bold policies. But it also proves the impossibility of talking sense on the subject of illicit drugs during a political campaign. That course of action would mean admitting the inadmissible: that the prohibition of cannabis has been cruel, wasteful and fraudulent.
The only serious consequence of our "war on drugs" has been to increase the profitability of the drugs and make use more common because of the huge profits. The Columbian drug cartels have killed hundreds if not thousands because the profits were so large. The large profit has meant that many more "pushers" have persuaded our children to try drugs and gotten many hooked. Profits are the driving factor in drug marketing. Why on earth did we think that by criminalizing their use and making the profits large we were reducing use?
However random enforcement has made the consequences random as well.
As noted in the article:
A candidate who spent his college days flouting our marijuana laws can be elected president, but an abstemious, button-downed candidate who proposes to change those laws has no hope.
Had we enforced our statutes more vigorously, of course, Bush, Clinton and the others would never have been elected anything, because they would be ex-convicts. Yet Bush, Clinton and the others were happy to put people behind bars for crimes they themselves committed.
Our courts, so quick to find almost any excuse to invent a new right if it applies to criminals and illegal aliens, can't seem to apply the equal protection of laws concept to the use of drugs versus the use of alcohol. Common sense doesn't count. The judges do not care about the rule of law unless it gives them more power. They care about the rule of judges. Trivial differences in the laws on alcohol and drugs is all they need to justify their participation in the war on the poor and minorities. That is what the war on drugs has become.