Wednesday, July 3, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Sliding Down A Slippery Slope ~ "...overturning Prop 8...In many ways, it was the worst of all possible outcomes."

This just in... (recieved in an email...just seconds ago!)
The difference between the Supreme Court and the Ku Klux Klan is that the justices of the Supreme Court dress in black robes and scare white people.

 Read more @ GALLUP
"In last weeks'ruling, the court did not rule on whether or not banning gay marriage was Constitutional, they simply ruled that the folks defending the law in court did not have standing to do so, and therefore that the appeal should never have been approved... which leaves the original court ruling overturning Prop 8 in effect. In many ways, it was the worst of all possible outcomes." See Politics Alabama below.

Approval of Supreme Court falls to all-time low: pollJust 28% of Americans believe the Supreme Court is doing a good or excellent job, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday. Another 30% rated the court’s performance as poor — the largest amount to say so in the nine years that Rasmussen has been asking the question. Read more here: New York Daily News
The following from Politics Alabama
My Problem With The SCOTUS Ruling On Prop 8

Last week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a much discussed ruling on Prop 8, the law in California that was passed by referendum and banned gay marriage. Some are saying this a victory for gay rights, while others are claiming that the Court overruled the voting majority that passed the referendum. In point of fact, the Court did neither... they did something much worse.
What can people do if they really want a law but the Legislature refuses to pass such a law? In states such as Alabama, all we can do is gripe and try to elect people who agree with us. In states such as Calfornia, however, citizens can sponsor a public vote on a measure by all registered voters and, if it passes, it becomes a law just as if the Legislature had passed it. (Note that this is a simplification... I am well aware that many states have other provisions.) And that's what happened in California with Prop 8.
In 2008, citizens of the State sponsored a measure that would be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. It got on the ballot, was voted on during a general election, and passed with a majority of votes. It was overturned in every court that heard the case, but here's the rub: The State refused to defend the law during the appeal, so the District court (with approval of the California Supreme Court) allowed the original petitioners who sponsored Prop 8 to defend it in court.
In last weeks'ruling, the court did not rule on whether or not banning gay marriage was Constitutional, they simply ruled that the folks defending the law in court did not have standing to do so, and therefore that the appeal should never have been approved... which leaves the original court ruling overturning Prop 8 in effect. In many ways, it was the worst of all possible outcomes.
You see, they didn't rule on the question of gay marriage, though most people are treating the results of the decision as if they did so rule. No, instead they simply ruled on standing. Now, why do I say this is bad?
Think of what happened... the majority of voters approved a referendum, which state law allowed to pass a law that the Legislature will not pass. In this way, the citizens have a way around a recalcitrant legislature, if they can get the majority of public opinion behind them. Now, under the new SCOTUS ruling, all a state government has to do to get rid of a law (passed by referendum) that they did not and do not want is to refuse to defend it in court. Since they don't defend the law in court and nobody else has standing to do so, then the law goes undefended... thus greatly increasing the chances of the law being overturned in the initial court, as well as eliminating any possible appeals to that original decision.
Thus the Supreme Court weakened the strength of laws passed by the referendum process... creating a kind of second-class law that can be easily gotten rid of. This is not the intention of referendum laws that attempt to give a voice to citizens when they are denied by their Legislature. If a Legislature wants to pass a law, a referendum isn't needed... by definition, a law passed by referendum is essentially passed against the will of the State (or local) government. Under the new SCOTUS decision, laws passed by referendum can now be easily overturned simply by the state government (which didn't want the law in the first place) refusing to defend it in court.
And that's my problem with their ruling on Prop 8... far from being a triumph against discrimination (or an affront to religiously-minded people, depending upon your point of view), it is in reality nothing more or less than a weakening of the referendum process. If the state refuses to defend in court a law that they didn't want, then SOMEBODY should be allowed to do so, for heaven's sake!

But not according to SCOTUS.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

A Confession...

I am Loyal Democrat. I will take the side of any entity that declares itself to be an enemy of the United States. I will consider any action taken by my government to be improper, and defend the position of any nation that opposes my own. I will not stand by while the concepts of freedom and liberty are allowed to infect the thoughts of repressed peoples. Rather, I will combat such efforts and convince the slaves of dictatorships that they have it better than anyone else.
I am Loyal Democrat. I will tell all Americans that they had 9/11 coming as retribution for all of our evil deeds inflicted upon members of the most peaceful religion on earth. I will work to undermine any effort to destroy the Islamic tidal wave of terror that has vowed to wash onto our beaches. I will strive to weaken our military as it attempts to carry out its mission overseas. I shall encourage total surrender to any foe that threatens us.
I am Loyal Democrat. I shall stir up domestic unrest by separating my fellow citizens into groups, and then I will encourage each group to distrust the next, and convince each that I am their one true friend. Through this magnificent deception, I will rule them all. I will convince minorities that they are inferior, and that they need my special help to succeed in life. Once I have them suspicious of others and fully demoralized, I will keep them down, and make their every gain dependent on what I decide to let them do. I shall oppress minorities worse than any avowed racist could ever hope to.
I am Loyal Democrat. I will make every effort to criticize people that achieve, to hinder those that aspire, and ridicule those that display self-worth. In spite of my lack of personal merit, I will elevate myself in the eyes of others by bringing people with actual character down. I will prey on people's envy of others' success, and I will gain undeserved power as a result. I will take from those that earn until they lose the motivation to build up mankind any longer.
I am Loyal Democrat. I will promote the tyranny of socialism, and crush the only economic system that has advanced mankind. And when we are all financially destitute and controlled by an omnipotent government, I shall laugh at the destruction I have wrought, for I truly hate mankind. ~ Yours truly, Barack Obama

Monday, July 1, 2013

Can we get every voter to listen to this? No...only the smart ones!

The video follows my rant.
Let me point out that the smart voter is now a minority.  They are not Democrats.  They are not Republicans.  They are not Libertarians.  In fact they would just as soon not identify themselves with any political party.  For were it not the political parties that destroyed everything that made this country great? 
If we begin to start name calling such as, "You voters are stupid.", then the voters become apprehensive and/or defensive...and they will continue to ignore you or put you down with a barrage of words that would imply that they are smarter than you rather than submit to the truth.  Case in point:
Recently the voters of Massachusetts voted in a special election to fill the vacated seat of Senator John Kerry.  As it turns out the guy that won the election was a 35 year veteran of Congress, U.S. Representative Edward Markey.  Now how stupid was that?  The country is rapidly falling apart and you elect a guy that contributed to the downfall as if it were some kind of a reward for good behavior.  Now I didn't like some of the ideas of his opponent but a little new blood in the game would have cut out some of the cancer that is eating us away.
Stupid stories somehow never make it into the voter textbooks to be used as learning tools.  Rather, the voters will make the same failing grade year after year until the school of hard knocks is closed.  It's reminiscent of U.S. Representative John Murhta of Pennsylvania and U.S. Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy of Massachusetts, two of the most corrupt, long term politicians who died while in office whereas they should have died behind bars...niether one of them ever did one good thing for the country...every voter that I had asked about those good-for-nothing politicians could not come up with that one-good-thing-for-the-country reason to vote for them.  Now how stupid is that?  ~ Norman E. Hooben

Now would be a good time to repeat this:
Originally posted in 2010, this commentary says it all...but only the smart voters will read it to the end.
An open letter to Americans:

As a Canadian, I’ve been observing for some time now, with great concern and even greater disbelief, the political farce enacted day after day in your country. And I keep asking, what have you done? For it seems to me, and to many others as well, that you have embarked upon a truly destructive course that may eventually bring the United States to the brink of ruination.
What have you done? You have elected a president on the strength of an ellipsis, neglecting to fill in the three dots trailing after his every echoing jingle—“Yes we can”…what? You have credited a nimble spinner of tales, a pretty fellow with no significant experience of the real world of risk, hard work and the hazards of survival, a thug with a beguiling smile. You have elevated to the highest office in the land a man without discernible qualifications who is plunging the nation into unredeemable debt for generations to come. You have installed possibly the most consummate liar in POTUS history, who breaks campaign promises as if he were cracking eggs for the skillet and changes his mind almost daily like a weathervane on steroids. You have put your trust in an intellectual lightweight and geopolitical bungler who makes Jimmy Carter look like a paragon of acute intelligence, moral substance and rare diplomatic foresight.
What have you done? You have bought into a fraudulent narrative. You have made a Faustian bargain with a suave Mephistophelian who offers hope and change but delivers instead inevitable suffering and a violated people. As in all such compacts, the price for a brief state of euphoria is subsequent prolonged distress. You have given carte blanche to a man with a personal dossier blacked out in many places like a letter from the front, so as not, apparently, to divulge sensitive information. You have raised among you a man whose friends and influences would surely have precluded him from meriting your confidence had you paid attention to plain facts rather than to quasi-mystical incantations. You have anointed a man with a sinister agenda. You have voted for your historical nemesis who with his every move and decision renders you increasingly insecure in a violent and unforgiving world.
If you need a slogan to trigger a reaction, it should not be “Yes we can”—whatever that might conceivably have meant—but “What have we done?”—whose implications should now be obvious. I pray it is not too late to reverse the trajectory you have unthinkingly plotted for yourselves. It may be a shame to let a serious crisis go to waste, as your president’s intimate adviser cynically put it, but it would be a much greater shame to let a crisis reach the point of no return. And there is little doubt that you are now facing an impending crisis of the first magnitude, both domestically and globally.
Let us count the ways.
The response to a looming international menace is paralysis, appeasement and misconstrual—to the dire effects of which we are all, not only Americans, susceptible. American troops are targeted on the battlefield by the interventions of rogue regimes, such as Syria and Iran, which the present administration refuses to condemn and, indeed, with which it is seeking closer engagement. Defense capability is progressively truncated. Officials sworn to defend the nation to the best of their ability are saddled with the fear of prosecution, discouraging their peers and successors from properly doing their job. Detained terrorists are repatriated to their fields of operation, many taking up once again the jihadist activities for which they were originally interned. Acts of military aggression are adjudicated as civil offenses, awarding terrorists the same constitutional rights as ordinary Americans. Solemn alliances are flouted with whimsical impunity and typical hissy fits while manifest tyrants are treated with kid gloves and gestures of obeisance. UN kleptocrats and avowed enemies are laureled with meretricious authority. This is what your president’s current foreign policy amounts to, abetted by a carefully selected and pliable cadre of career puppets without character or backbone.
Meanwhile, legitimate dissent is denounced as a form of subversion. The Constitution is euphemistically interpreted as a “living document,” that is, as subject to tampering, which is nothing less than an assault upon the foundational heritage of the Republic. Individual liberties are being relentlessly eroded and private behavior regulated by an expanding government bureaucracy. The prospect of enfranchising up to eleven million illegal immigrants presages an American ochlocracy, that is, government by the masses rather than the laws—the very antithesis of Republican rule. Unelected officials, appointed by the president and known as “czars,” wield disproportionate power as they carry out their master’s directives. Unsustainable entitlement programs impinge dramatically upon the future. Income redistribution schemes disincentivize industrial and commercial productivity, creating a shrinking GDP and budgetary shortfall. Discredited hypotheses such as anthropogenic “climate change” are allowed to drive economic policy, leading to even further instability. Major tax hikes are on the horizon, complemented by the shell game of disappearing numbers, especially in regard to the so-called healthcare “reform,” with revenue calculated over a longer period than expenditures. New debt is piled on old debt like Pelion on Ossa. Fiscal blood drains from the nation’s arteries. These and more are the daylight consequences of your electoral delirium.
Who am I to address the citizens of another country? A loyal friend, and a citizen of a nation whose fate is inextricably bound up with yours. My interests are also at stake. That is why I am glad to note that many people are now awakening to the nature and extent of their folly, but far too many still malinger in the grip of a profound narcosis. To these latter, I would say that, in your desire for novelty, your pampered sense of frivolous grievance and your hypnotic suggestibility, you have chosen to cohabit with an incubus. You have shown a readiness to be seduced not by a lover of freedom but by a votary of his own malign gods. Despite the recent surfeit of Hollywood films, TV programs and neo-gothic novels fondly rehabilitating the undead, deep down you must know there is no such thing as a good vampire.
And so, in conclusion, I ask once again. What have you done?
Thoughts about Hillary...
A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom. ~ Friedrich August von Hayek
We all know that Hillary Clinton cusses and lies with almost every off camera breath and that in and of itself is not reason to deny her your vote.   You deny her your vote because she can care less about you, the individual.  Which means she can care less about your freedom…to her, it’s all about control…and that’s bad!
 "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton, 1993

“A regime is ruling in the United States today that acts in totalitarian ways...” Read the latest here!

The following from: WND
“a monitored human being is not a free human being,”
F. Michael Maloof
New warning: 'Totalitarianism' on way
Obama 'heads biggest surveillance network ever'

WASHINGTON – Europeans are beginning to express increasing alarm over the Obama administration and the extent of electronic snooping it has been conducting on people around the world, including Americans, and are proposing heavy penalties on U.S. internet networks if they’re caught.
“Is Barack Obama a friend?” asks one commentary in the highly regarded German magazine Der Spiegel.
“Revelations about his government’s vast spying program call the assumption into doubt,” it said. “The European Union must protect the continent from America’s reach for omnipotence.”
This feeling was further underscored on the occasion of President Barack Obama’s recent appearance in Berlin. The people who turned out for his speech were just a fraction of those who saw the one the president gave in Berlin years ago.
Der Spiegel referred to Obama as the “head of the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented.”
“If Barack Obama is our friend,” the editorial said, “then we really don’t need to be terribly worried about our enemies.”
From the German perspective, U.S. worldwide surveillance appears to be acceptable to the American people. However, the European and especially the German perspective is that “a monitored human being is not a free human being,” Der Spiegel said. “And every state that systematically contravenes human rights, even in the alleged service of security, is acting criminally.”
Referring to the instances of drone attacks, setting up the prison camp at Guantanamo and the harsh interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib that included waterboarding by CIA there and in rendition prisons it set up at various locations around the world, it said the world perspective on the U.S. is changing.
“A regime is ruling in the United States today that acts in totalitarian ways when it comes to its claim to total control,” it said. “Soft totalitarianism is still totalitarianism.”
Now that they’re aware of worldwide surveillance by the NSA, Europeans appear to be asking whether the Obama administration will respect their rights. The rampant surveillance of Americans raises concerns, especially among Germans.
There is talk about Europe setting up its own system of networks to limit U.S. surveillance of Europeans, even though the cost would be great.
“It would require subsidies and a vision as big as the moon landing,” according to Frank Schirrmacher of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.