↓ Archives ↓

Posts Tagged → US Supreme Court

“Death is healthy, safety is dangerous”…wtf?

Few events have highlighted the sweaty, crusty butt crack separating America’s Left from the Normal people like the few recent US Supreme Court holdings over the past week. These holdings on Second Amendment rights, improper judicial legislating from the bench (Roe v. Wade), and religious liberty fly in the face of decades of Leftist activism and common establishment media narratives, and have elicited wonderfully violent public statements, violent actions, and promises of more violence from the Left and its Sinn Fein, the Democrat Party.

If the Democrat Party can’t control Americans with freedom-crushing iron-fisted laws, then they intend to control us through more murder, destruction, and mayhem.

As a long-ago former member of the Democrat Party, I am mystified how more Americans don’t walk away from this corrupt and morally bankrupt organization. How can it be that people are loyal to this lawless anti-America movement when its leaders:

  • cannot tell us what is a woman, but then say that women’s rights have somehow been diminished by allowing the fifty states to determine among themselves when a child can be killed by its mother
  • tell us that the death of a living, breathing child is “healthy” or is “healthcare”
  • say that a wide-open southern border over which child traffickers and deadly fentanyl pour daily unchecked and undocumented and uncontrolled is “fair”
  • catch and release violent criminals back into society, instead of jailing them, so they can continue committing violent crimes against innocent people
  • demand civilian disarmament to prevent citizens from keeping legal firearms close to them for protection because armed law-abiding civilians are “dangerous”
  • say that the practice of religion by just one person in public is the equivalent of establishing an official religion

We could easily have this list go on and on, but anyone paying attention to what is happening around our homes and families and businesses already knows that there is a significant percentage of Americans who do not identify as Americans, and who are attempting to use our collectively owned government to destroy America from the inside. This is not a what the f*ck (wtf) thing, it is a crystal clear philosophical separation between two different groups of humans.

These two groups could easily be associated with groups from the past, like the Democrat Party slave owners of 1861 and their Republican Party abolitionist (anti slavery) opponents. I think the choices facing Americans today are easily as stark as they were in 1861, except that instead of controlling a few million African slaves like in 1861, the Democrat Party is now trying to enslave all of America. All of us. You and me.

Why rich guys like McCormick, Oz, and Bartos make such bad senators

The old adage “Follow the money” for figuring out who benefits from crime and betrayal applies also to political candidates. People who want your vote can have only a couple of reasons for asking for it: Personal power (bad reason), money (bad reason), and influence over public policy (great or bad reason, depending upon the candidate).

Personal power should never be associated with any individual elected citizen in a representative democracy or constitutional republic. That is the essence of power corrupting nearly everything it touches.

Making money from official positions in government is obviously corrupt, because the sole purpose and role of any official anywhere is to serve The People. As soon as an official uses his or her official position to enrich themselves, they are corrupt.

Finally, having influence over public policy to serve the citizenry’s public interest is the only legitimate reason for anyone to run for office or to serve in the official government bureaucracy. Influence for the sake of The People’s benefit is the gold standard for putting your name in the ring and asking for the votes of fellow citizens. And it is the rare candidate who runs for office on this basis alone. However, there are candidates running for office for this sole purpose, and they alone deserve your support. Because after all, they are probably solely devoted to you, The People.

So, always be skeptical of all candidates asking for your vote right off the bat, and dig a little into how they benefit from obtaining the power of the elected position they seek.

Just yesterday we gained insight into the reason why rich guy candidates like Dave McCormick, Dr. Oz, and Jeff Bartos deserve absolutely zero votes from any regular guy or gal voter.

Did you see how fellow ultra-wealthy guy and gal US senators Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) abandoned their simple commitment to basic law and common sense legal policy by supporting anti-Constitution cultural Marxist Ketanji Jackson’s confirmation to the US Supreme Court?

Both Murkowski and Romney have used their elected positions to enrich themselves while in office, too. Both are in office for all the wrong reasons (same goes for US senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and many others).

Romney and Murkowski did this because rich guys and gals inhabit a very tiny sphere of fellow wealthy people, whose acclaim and support they crave more than anything. They will do anything, vote any way against the interests of their constituents, to win the acclaim and support of their fellow rich people.

Over American history, very few wealthy officials have done good for The People, and most often they only do well for themselves and their fellow socialites. Outside of America’s Founding Fathers, we can count on one hand the number of wealthy presidents who have actually only served The People: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard M. Nixon (who was actually poor as dirt), and Ronald Reagan.

If you think for one second that a candidate like ultra rich Connecticut socialite guy Dave McCormick is ever going to be a Theodore Roosevelt, you are fooling yourself. Dave McCormick is quietly funded by huge Democrat Party donors as well as GOPe donors, all of whom have much more in common with one another than they have differences amongst themselves, hence the term “uniparty.”

To a smaller degree that same can be said for Dr. Oz (a long time liberal from outside PA) and RINO Jeff Bartos.

So, if you want another spineless, liberal, wavering, uncertain, disloyal rich socialite like Mitt Romney or Lisa Murkowski to be elected as a Republican in Pennsylvania, then by all means vote for McCormick, Oz, and Bartos.

And if you are like the vast majority of American voters these days, who are allergic to ultra rich people getting elected to office and then forgetting all about us when they get there, then there is only one true, honest candidate running for US Senate for the right reason: Kathy Barnette.

Kathy Barnette definitely deserves your vote next month, because of all the candidates, she alone has just your public policy interests at heart.

If Ketanji don’t know what she is, then she don’t know law

Ketanji Brown Jackson, apparently an adult American now sitting in judgment of other Americans while applying the laws and the constitution of our nation to their cases, said in her hearing to become the next appointed US Supreme Court justice, that she can’t define what “a woman” is.

If an adult American cannot identify and describe what a woman is, then either that person is mentally deficient, or they are suffering from moral and cognitive relativism. Or both. And either one of these disqualifies that person from being a judge or justice, or any other sort of professional, either.

Moral relativism became a thing in the 1960s, and it is now the driving force behind critical race theory in particular, and Marxist critical theory in general. These bizarro Planet X theories (not of or for use on this earth) hold that nothing is really definitive, or true, because anyone can believe whatever they want to believe. “What is true for you is true for you, but is not for me,” is one of the famous lines the confused believers in this Marxist religion repeat mantra-like.

And thus is the rule of law, the rule of reason, logic, and physical evidence thrown completely out the window. And so we are faced with a Supreme Court nominee who holds by this Marxist critical race notion, that even the most obvious things are not really knowable. Like how to define a woman.

Setting aside Ketanji’s own statements opposing the US Constitution, and her grotesquely deliberately generous support for child molesters and sexual predators, any one of which by themselves disqualify her from officially sitting in judgment of anyone anywhere (how incredibly weak is our own checks and balances system that she has not yet been impeached and removed from the bench for her  incompetence), if she cannot make hay of basic biology, then she cannot discern basic facts and basic tenets of American law.

Ketanji is not in any way qualified to be a judge or a justice.

In truth, Ketanji is not really to be taken seriously as a Supreme Court nominee, because she is not only proudly and defiantly dumb as a box of rocks and as sharp as a bag of wet mice, she is a deliberately antagonistic political-cultural bomb thrown into the American body politic. Her nomination is meant to be a slap across the face of American jurisprudence and a deliberate kick at the legs holding up the rule of law that we all take for granted. She would rule on monumental legal questions affecting 350 million American citizens based on vague feelings and jokes of the day, not on being legally erudite or philosophically consistent.

Ketanji is living proof that the Democrat Party is a force of lawlessness and un-seriousness about actually managing a law-based nation. Rather, Ketanji is living evidence the Democrat Party is brazenly trying to dismantle America.

There is no way in Hell that Ketanji should be confirmed to the US Supreme Court. Not in an America based on law. She is not qualified and she should not even serve as a dog catcher anywhere. And what is really a shame about this ridiculous exercise in political theater is truly competent and legally qualified black women are available to be nominated to the US Supreme Court.

But they are all patriotic, Constitutional conservatives….who know for a fact that they are women. The Democrat Party could not support them.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is a clown, not a judge

Judge, Jury, and Executioner…Judge, Congress, and President

Federal Judge Watson from Haw’aii has demonstrated a passion for power far beyond his designated duties, but similar to the recent approach of the Venezuelan court.

How?

First he ignored US law and the US Constitution, and ruled against an executive order over which he had zero jurisdiction.

Then he actually stipulated details in his holding, as if he had written a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Then, after the US Supreme Court overturned his holding, he immediately accepted a new, repeat appeal of the same executive order that the US Supreme Court had just upheld, and then overturned the holding of the US Supreme Court, actually once again throwing in new requirements as if he had just written a law.

Judge Watson is behaving exactly the opposite of how a federal judge is supposed to behave, and he is also directly challenging the authority of the the entire US government, and most worrying, the US Supreme Court, to whom you would think he had some shred of loyalty.

Judge Watson wants to be judge, jury and executioner. Or in these exact conditions, he wants to be judiciary, congress, and president. And he is acting just as he wants to be, despite our nation’s law and Constitution clearly prohibiting his actions.

Judge Watson wants to rule by fiat, by declaration.

Judge Watson wants to be a law unto himself, unaccountable even to his fellow judiciary.

Judge Watson is a rogue political actor, abusing the legal process clearly defined by our laws and Constitution, for the narrow purpose of advancing his political agenda.

Making Watson’s actions worse is the cheering section he has among millions of Americans, who care only for process when it suits their goals and caring for it not at all when it gets in the way of their goals.

This cheering section also cares not for abiding by laws they disagree with, and they will therefore use any source of power or authority they can find to contradict the laws that have passed through the procedure by which we all agree to live.

So they cheer on Judge Watson the anarchist judge.

That this is the most elementary anarchy and not just corrosive but destructive of America’s foundations seems not to deter the cheering section. It is the end of the rule of law.

“Win at any cost and in any way” is their motto.

How anyone can live harmoniously with this shattered approach to governance is anyone’s guess. This is exactly how the American Civil War began in 1860, and it may well lead to another civil war in 2017.

Making this situation worse is a president and a congress who believe in not only playing by the rules, but excusing every rule infraction of their opponents, with the silly notion that somehow their opponents (the cheering section for anarchist Judge Watson) will eventually come around and accept the fact that they lost an election and are not, therefore, able to consolidate power and control through yet more abuse of the system as they had planned.

Our current president could take a lesson from prior presidents, who, having had quite enough of over-reaching judges, simply encouraged those judges to go ahead and enforce their unconstitutional holdings in the face of a lawful president doing what he was elected to do, enabled by law and Constitution.

Lacking the means of enforcement, those overreaching judges were forced to simply watch events pass them by, having undermined their own authority by their own hand.

Our current Congress could take a lesson from past congresses, stop being such limp di#ks, and act out their Constitutional authority, such as impeaching and removing from the judicial bench those rogue judges who threaten to tear down the very society they are sworn to uphold and protect. Like anarchist Judge Watson.

Friends, none of us has an idea of how this is going to work out.

About a third of the nation is in open, violent rebellion in the streets, and in the few halls of power they still control, against established laws and against the Constitution.

About a third of the country is itching for a fight to get the first third back in line, because we cannot afford the high cost of these illegal antics.

And another third of the country is drinking beer, eating hamburgers, going to summertime baseball games, and wondering aloud when the other citizens are going to get this all worked out.

America is equally divided into thirds, perhaps in the potential roles as judges, juries, and executioners, or as judges, elected representatives, and chief executives.

We are very close to working this all out peacefully, if we all agree to just stay within those established roles, because then we will have restored the balance of power among the three co-equal branches of government that has always defined American government.

Now everyone line up into three lines, pick one line, and stay there. Then vote, and stick with the result like adults.

 

Beating that dead horse? You bet

Religious freedom is specifically protected in the US Constitution’s First Amendment. It is one of the hallmarks of American liberty, one of our claims to fame.

Enter liberalism AKA fascism.

If you are Brendan Eich, founder of Mozilla, and you believe in the Bible and you vote that way, and you donate money to causes and candidates who represent that view, why…you are FIRED. Yes, fired for your religious and political views.

If you are Elaine Huguenin of Elaine Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, you are now in violation of a state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual behavior. So Elaine was sued because she didn’t want to photograph a gay wedding. Our super lame US Supreme Court refused to stand up for Elaine’s rights.

Wedding cakes for same-sex couples have also become cause celebre.

So apparently it is now against the law to believe in the Bible, to follow the Bible, and to follow your religious conscience.  It appears that it is now illegal to be against gay behavior.  And it appears that you can be fired for being insufficiently supportive of gay behavior.  Is it against the law to be against gay behavior?

My question is, Can a gay baker be compelled to make a birthday cake for an anti-gay activist? Like, say, anti-gay Westboro Baptist members?

Like so much of this issue, the whole thing stinks to high heaven of double standards. Tolerance for one should be tolerance for all. First Amendment rights are clearly under attack by the very fascists who proclaim themselves to be the most tolerant and open minded of all.

American rights are being lost, and I will keep beating on this dead horse, until it gets up and starts running like it used to.  Giddy up!

Guns – Your individual right

Gun ownership is an individual right, not a “collective” right.

There is no such thing as a “collective” right in the American liberties enumerated in our Constitution.

If you think otherwise, you really must study the Constitution more.  Local to the Harrisburg area is an organization that provides classes on Constitutional issues: http://reclaimliberty.com/

The “collective right” idea was ginned up out of thin air in the 1970s by anti-freedom activists.  The US Supreme Court has rejected it twice, and there is not an honest scholar anywhere who believes in it.

The Bill of Rights is exactly that – a list of individual rights and liberties that belong to American citizens.  No one can take them away.  Whether you choose to exercise those rights, or not, is your choice.

US Supreme Court decides straight forward case with weird outcomes

Fernandez v. California was decided yesterday by the US Supreme Court.  Everything about it is just…weird.

In a holding that is enraging advocates of private property rights, limited government, and citizen privacy, the Court’s conservatives were joined by two liberals to allow the police to enter a private home without a warrant, even if one resident says they cannot enter, because another resident said they could enter.

In other words, if the police get a resident of a home to grant permission to enter that home for the purpose of searching for something illegal, which the police now do not have to specify in writing, the police may enter.  What they are looking for could be unknown, or undocumented.  Maybe they are on a fishing expedition, just looking for anything they could use against the person who said they did not want the police to enter.  It seems like planting evidence would be a lot easier, now.  In any event, your home is no longer your castle, if a pissed off teenager inside decides to take out their misplaced teenage aggression against their loving parents.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent, noting the obvious erosion in Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures that result from holdings like this.  Ginsburg is the court’s most liberal member, an extremist who has spoken out against the US Constitution she is sworn to uphold, and an authoritarian statist who otherwise just loves, loves, loves state power over citizens.

And here’s the really weird stuff: The facts involve “illegal guns,” which in California is anything down to and including a Daisy BB gun, and documented domestic violence.

The person blocking the police from entering the home to search it was the Mr. Wife-Beating Fernandez, a scumbag who held his cringing wife prisoner under brutal circumstances.  After he was momentarily out of the picture and not a direct threat, she allowed the police to search the house, where they found the illegal guns (let’s be clear – California is on the path to making all gun ownership illegal, except by the police, which is otherwise known as a police state, a separate topic).

Thus did Mr. Macho Wife Beater get into even more and more serious trouble with the legal system, and thus did he subsequently attempt to suppress the evidence the police found, which really put him away behind bars for a while.

Ginsburg and other liberals typically trumpet the rights of domestic abuse victims, but here they are clearly ranking them beneath the rights of the gun-owning wife beater.  Weird.

Conservatives like Alito typically champion the rights of gun owners and are split 50/50 on privacy rights.  But here they are so obviously opening up the flood gates of potential abuse by police.  No warrant?  No documentation for probable cause? Husbands and wives typically cannot testify against each other, but here they are now allowed to defy one another in the family ‘castle’ so the state apparatus may enter at will.

Seems like a pretty huge detonation of American citizens’ privacy rights.  Weird.