Options

Digest

Friday, July 30, 2010

The Foundation

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics

Judge Blocks Part of Arizona's Immigration Law

Trash left along the border by illegal aliens

Clinton-appointed District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked most of Arizona's immigration law this week, ruling that it would "impermissibly burden federal resources." In other words, enforcing federal law is a violation of federal law. The preliminary injunction, she said, would merely preserve the status quo and be less harmful to immigrants than allowing the law to be enforced in full. The next step for Arizona is an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Bolton said that the Justice Department's suit was "likely to succeed on the merits."

Bolton blocked the primary provisions of the law -- including those requiring state law enforcement officials to check immigration status when other legitimate contact occurs, as well as the requirement that foreigners carry their papers at all times (federal law already requires this). On the other hand, 12 provisions, including some on human smuggling and transporting illegals, were left intact. All told, though, her ruling went even further than the DoJ had hoped.

The Department of Homeland Security is bound by federal law to "respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status ... for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information." Yet Bolton wrote, "An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration ... will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities." Or as National Review put it, "she accepts Justice's implicit argument that it's not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce."

National Review concludes:

The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.

For the administration, the bottom line isn't the law, but getting voters from the Hispanic bloc. With the help of their Leftmedia minions, they are succeeding. Meanwhile, America's immigration system remains broken and in desperate need of repair -- preferably by those who value and uphold the Rule of Law.

News From the Swamp: Rangel Cuts a Deal (or Not)

Corrupt 20-term Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has yet to admit to a series of serious ethical violations, thereby setting the stage for a rare and highly embarrassing public trial this fall, just before the mid-term elections. Rangel's lawyers appear to be working behind the scenes to arrange a sort of plea bargain, though, and his fellow Democrats are begging him to do so, thereby sparing them the additional electoral hardship that a trial would bring. As if the Demo "brand" weren't already damaged goods.

The House ethics committee, which must approve any deal, charged Rangel with 13 counts of breaking House rules, including granting official favors in exchange for money, taking trips to the Caribbean using corporate funds, failing to report income from rental property in the Dominican Republic and misusing rent-controlled apartments in New York City. "Even though there are serious charges," Rangel said, "I am prepared to prove that the only thing I've ever had in my 50 years of public service is service. That's what I've done. And if I've been overzealous in providing that service, I can't make an excuse for the serious violation but I can have an explanation of my intent." Oh, well then never mind.

For her part, hypocritical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says that her 2006 pledge to "drain the swamp" didn't include getting rid of corrupt Democrats like Rangel, who until recently chaired the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. (Ways and Means, among its other duties, writes the nation's tax laws -- laws which apparently apply to everyone except their author.) "The swamp was described as a criminal syndicate operating out of the Republican leader's office," Pelosi said, referring to former Majority Leader Tom Delay. "This was a terrible place," she added. "We made a tremendous difference, and I take great pride in that." The more things change...

New & Notable Legislation

The DISCLOSE Act died a much deserved death (or at least went on life support) this week when the traditionally unpredictable Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the "Republican" senators from Maine, maintained their support of the filibuster to prevent the legislation from coming to a vote on the floor. The cloture vote failed 57-41. Democrats crafted this thinly veiled attempt to hamstring fundraising for their Republican opponents in response to a recent Supreme Court decision that restored First Amendment rights by reducing restrictions on contributions for political campaigns by corporations and foundations. In the end, the bill was defeated by common sense. As Collins noted, "It carves out certain favored groups, and that's just not fair. It's also likely unconstitutional." Chief among those favored groups were unions, which would have enjoyed a blanket exemption from the bill, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions they gave to Democrats in the last election cycle.

ObamaCare in its current form doesn't contain a public insurance option, so Democrats introduced legislation this week that would create just such a creature. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has gotten behind the proposal by suggesting that such an option would save $68 billion by 2020 and offer lower premiums. The CBO claims that premiums would be based on Medicare's current rates but wouldn't be subject to future reductions that will be needed to keep Medicare solvent. The CBO stated earlier this year that ObamaCare would save $100 billion over the next 10 years, but after the bill was signed, the CBO and the White House both admitted (surprise!) that health care "reform" would actually be in the red by 2014, if it isn't already. Many in the insurance industry, as well as many hospitals and doctors, believe that the public option will cut Medicare reimbursements for health care providers and lower the general quality of care.

The House approved $33 billion in additional spending for Afghanistan by a vote of 308-114, including 102 Democrats opposed. Those who supported it managed to tack on an additional $26 billion in "emergency" domestic spending, which became part of the whole package.

Energy legislation in the Senate is still alive, but significantly different from the sweeping "reform" plan that had been touted since Obama took office in January 2009. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has changed his focus to a $15 billion bill that offers $5 billion in rebates for energy efficient retrofits to homes, $3.8 billion to push the use of natural gas-operated trucks, and another $400 million to further study electric cars. Maybe the study will make the new Chevy Volt run for more than 40 miles per charge and cost lass than 41 grand. Many Democrats are concerned, however, because they want to see more environmental legislation and more government control over at least the energy producers, if not the entire industrial sector of America.

Massachusetts vs. the Electoral College

"The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote," reports the Boston Globe. The bill would award all 12 of the Bay State's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote and is part of a larger National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The goal is to persuade enough states to enact similar legislation to reach 270 electoral votes, ensuring that the winner of the popular vote also wins the Electoral College vote. Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington -- all blue states -- have already approved the legislation. No doubt the main reason for this effort is lingering bitterness over the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but won the Electoral College, and thus, the presidency.

However, the law would take effect only when enough states have signed on -- and assuming a future legislature doesn't change the rules again. Indeed, as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, in an outstanding analysis of the constitutionality and political feasibility of the law, writes, "Since the NPVIC would be legally unenforceable, only political pressure could be brought to bear to ensure that state legislatures stand by their commitments to it. Would this be enough? Let's put the question in starkly partisan terms: If you're a Republican, do you trust Massachusetts lawmakers to keep their word, and to defy the will of the voters who elected them, if by doing so they would make Sarah Palin president?"

National Security

Warfront With Jihadistan: The WikiLeaks Case

Last Sunday, the website WikiLeaks published some 92,000 classified documents concerning the Afghan war, covering the period from 2004 to 2009. The military is investigating U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning in connection with the leak. Manning served with the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade in Baghdad, working on intelligence operations.

The documents were quickly picked up by nearly every military, government and news organization around the world. They cover an extraordinary range of topics, from small unit operational and tactical reports to broad, strategic analysis of political and military relations between the U.S. and Pakistan. While the leak drew justifiable condemnation, at this point it doesn't appear that there are any major revelations -- other than names and hometowns of some Afghan informants.

The documents confirm the general consensus about the Afghan war, especially the suspected links between Pakistani intelligence and the Taliban. Pakistani spy services meet directly with the Taliban in order to organize the fight against American forces and to develop assassination plots against Afghan leaders. The reports also indicate that American soldiers know about a Pakistani-run network that assists the insurgents and that runs from the Afghan border to southern Afghanistan and on into Kabul. While U.S. officials won't verify these details, they confirm that the alleged Pakistani collaboration is consistent with other classified sources. Combined with firsthand accounts of American soldiers' anger at Pakistan's unwillingness to fight insurgents attacking Pakistani border posts, the documents contrast sharply with U.S. pronouncements that Pakistan is a loyal ally in the Afghan war. Then again, they do comport with then-candidate Obama's pledge to bomb Pakistan.

Unfortunately, the documents also suggest that the current U.S. strategy won't win the war because an insufficient U.S. ground force is fighting a determined enemy on his home turf with time on his side. If Pakistan believes this to be the case, then when (not if) the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will be back in control. Therefore, it makes sense for Pakistanis to lend support surreptitiously to the Taliban, who will be living on their border and who would seek retribution against an unfriendly neighbor. This also means that long-term U.S. goals in Afghanistan (not to mention the lives of our soldiers) are in greater jeopardy given the current strategy.

Perhaps most disturbing, the documents reveal much about our military's tactics, methods, sources and communication. Such details will be all too useful to our enemies. "If I had gotten this trove on the Taliban or al Qaeda, I would have called this priceless," said former CIA director Michael Hayden. "If I'm head of the Russian intelligence, I'm getting my best English speakers and saying: 'Read every document, and I want you to tell me, how good are these guys? What are their approaches, their strengths, their weaknesses and their blind spots?'"

The Obama regime has some serious soul searching to do regarding the Afghan war effort. If the U.S. is unsuccessful there, our jihadist foes will no doubt redouble their efforts against us.

Non-STARTer

Barack Obama's cherished arms-control achievement, the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia that was signed in April, appears to be in danger of failing to win Senate approval. That's just fine with us, as the real danger to U.S. national security is the new START treaty itself. In addition to reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal for no reason except to appease Russia, the treaty is also a backdoor means of re-instituting the limits of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the U.S. withdrew from under President George W. Bush. Russia cannot afford to maintain a larger arsenal anyway and has always hated U.S. missile defense efforts, including the modest system that would have been deployed in Poland to defend against Iranian missiles.

Administration officials have claimed that Russia has a strong interest in complying with the treaty, an opinion that probably surprises many in the State Department. Its just-released report on Russian compliance with the original 1991 treaty stated that Russia cheated from the time it was signed until it expired last December. No surprise there -- Russia was never in compliance with the ABM Treaty either, from 1972 through 2002. But not to worry, said Air Force General Kevin Chilton, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command. When asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if Russian cheating mattered, Gen. Chilton actually said out loud for the record that, no, it didn't matter, leading McCain to ask what good such a treaty would be in the first place. Perhaps based on this exchange, and other emerging facts about Russia's record, Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-vorced from reality) indicated that he might not call for a vote on the new treaty before the upcoming August recess.

To punctuate the effect of Obama's neophyte approach to nuclear policy, there are ominous rumblings that Turkey may be on the verge of a decision to go nuclear. Who can blame them? The U.S. nuclear umbrella that protected Turkey for the last half-century must not appear terribly reliable these days as that country eyes neighbors like Russia, Israel, Iran and Syria -- all of whom have or are pursuing nuclear arms. If Turkey goes nuclear, and if Greece follows, the Non-Proliferation Treaty will go up in smoke, NATO will fracture, and a new Middle East competition among nuclear states from Algeria to Pakistan will begin.

Did the White House Lobby for Lockerbie Bomber's Release?

The U.S. government appears to be complicit in the early release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who in 2001 had been sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life in a Scottish prison. However, Megrahi was released and allowed to return to Libya last year when it was made public that he was allegedly terminally ill with cancer and expected to live only three months. Megrahi is still alive in Libya, and some experts maintain that he could live another decade in his native country.

Documents surrounding the matter that were recently made public reveal that the U.S. government considered "compassionate release" in Scotland -- where Megrahi was imprisoned -- more acceptable than a transfer to Libya, where he remains a free man. Not surprisingly, Attorney General Eric Holder was involved in this correspondence. What is surprising is why compassion had to be considered at all for the terrorist who was responsible for the murder of 270 people. Perhaps it's just another example of Barack Obama's outreach to the Muslim world to help them understand their "contributions" to society.

Business & Economy

British Health System to Shift Costs, Ration Care

Looking for "efficiency savings" in its socialized health care system, Britain is poised to play musical chairs with billions in funding while rationing services. Neither is surprising. The government aims to shift up to $125 billion of its annual $160 billion health budget from centralized control to local doctors, who will have to purchase health care services from hospitals and providers. The government says patient care won't suffer, but a Sunday Telegraph investigation found that "some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures" will be rationed. Additionally, nursing homes will close, hospital bed capacity will shrink, and terminally ill patients will either be sent home to die or not be admitted to the hospital in the first place.

The inevitable ends of government-run health care -- cost shifting, service rationing and compromised care -- caught up with Britain long ago; this is only the latest episode of this wasting disease. If we continue to follow the path to socialized health care, we too will contract the affliction.

Income Redistribution: Health Care Tax on Gold

All that glitters is not gold. But if it is gold, get ready to pay a tax on it. ABC News reports, "Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change." This nugget falls under Section 9006 of ObamaCare -- undoubtedly one of the many sections unread by those who voted to pass the behemoth bill.

According to Diane Piret of the Industry Council for Tangible Assets, which represents approximately 5,000 coin and bullion dealers nationwide, "Coin dealers not only buy for their inventory from other dealers, but also with great frequency from the public." Now every time someone sells more than $600 in gold to a dealer, the dealer will have to report the purchase to the government. With gold at nearly $1,200 an ounce, one Michigan business owner who runs a coin service company estimates that he will have to file 10,000 to 20,000 tax forms each year. "I'll have to hire two full-time people just to track all this stuff, which cuts into my profitability," he said.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says the tax will raise $17 billion for Uncle Sam over the next 10 years. But money isn't all that's at stake. Gold buying has become popular among conservatives and those wary of the economic impact of this administration's policies. What better way to target -- and track -- these gold investors than to sic the IRS on them?

The IRS office of the National Taxpayer Advocate says the tax "may present significant administrative challenges to taxpayers and the IRS." We think "administrative challenges" are the least of our worries.

From the Left: Kerry Attempts to Sink Controversy Over New Yacht

We all recall the swift boat controversy that contributed to John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry's defeat in the 2004 presidential election, but a more recent rift, coupled with the usual flip-flop on his part, has put Kerry in rough seas with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and one of its key industries. Kerry recently christened a new $7 million yacht, dubbed Isabel. While the Massachusetts senator claimed it would be docked in adjacent Newport, Rhode Island, for "maintenance, upkeep and charter" purposes, the dodge also would have allowed him to avoid more than $500,000 in Massachusetts sales and excise taxes. Rhode Island repealed a boat sales and use tax in 2003 and has become something of a haven for pricey watercraft.

Kerry sought to quash the controversy by announcing that he would pay the Bay State the tax bill anyway. "As we've said from the beginning, we have always complied with tax laws and we always will," he said. "The payment is being made promptly." As the Boston Herald reports, however, he may be required to pay the tax anyway. "[A]ccording to state law, if Kerry brings that boat into Massachusetts waters in the first six months of owning it, there is a 'presumption of use' and he would have to pony up some $437,500 to the state. When asked ... if he had brought the Isabel into Bay State waters, Kerry replied, 'It depends on who owns it.' As the press pressed for more, Kerry added, 'Can I get out of here, please?'"

Meanwhile, local shipbuilders are upset that the Isabel wasn't built in Massachusetts or even on our home shores; a New Zealand shipbuilder crafted the multi-million-dollar yacht. It's even designed in such a manner that a crew need not pilot the ship, saving Kerry the expense of hiring experienced seamen. In other words, no Massachusetts jobs were created or saved by John Kerry's yacht.

Culture & Policy

Around the Nation: Ground Zero Mosque Fight Continues

A conservative civil liberties group has an interesting plan to fight the construction of Cordoba House, a 13-story mosque and Muslim cultural center just two blocks from Ground Zero. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has petitioned for landmark status for the building currently on the site. Ironically, that same building -- a 152-year-old warehouse -- was clipped by one of the planes Muslim terrorists flew into the Twin Towers on 9/11.

The ACLJ argues that, in addition to its architectural value, the warehouse is worthy of the status because it was directly affected by the attacks. But now, the organization claims, it's running smack into New York City politics. The New York Landmark Preservation Commission, according to ACLJ lawyer Jordan Sekulow, is "trying to fast-track and sidestep a well documented process in order to clear the way for this sacred site to be used as a location to build this mosque."

Coincidentally, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the Cordoba project, which will feature not only a prayer center, but also a theater, cooking school, swimming pool and restaurant. Banning the mosque, Bloomberg stated, is tantamount to banning religious freedom. "That's not what America was founded on," he added, "nor is it what America should become."

Some may claim that this is a simple case of discrimination against Muslims, but one could argue this approach has many flaws -- perhaps the largest being the citing of the First Amendment. Cordoba, like any other house of worship, would be protected against discriminatory congressional laws; it says nothing of American citizens objecting to a mosque being built on the doorstep of the World Trade Center.

Proponents claim the mosque will be a symbol of healing. But historically, Muslims have built mosques on sacred ground as a symbol only of their dominance. A mosque at Ground Zero would thus be nothing more than a celebration of the murder of thousands of Americans, and the only thing more disturbing would be our acceptance of it.

Village Academic Curriculum: Student Expelled for Beliefs on Homosexuality

The expulsion of one graduate student and the threatened expulsion of another have sparked a debate about religious freedom at our nation's public universities. Julea Ward was expelled from Eastern Michigan University's graduate program in school counseling after refusing to counsel homosexual clients. Ward, a Christian, believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. The school contended that Ward's behavior violated not only school policy but also the American Counseling Association's Code of Ethics. Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh agreed, upholding Ward's expulsion and finding that the school was proper in adopting the ACA's code. Ward's suit, claiming that the school demanded that she either change her views about homosexuality or be kicked out of the program, has been dismissed. We have to wonder if she would be expelled if she were Muslim. To ask the question is to answer it.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund has issued a caveat to Christian students across the country, stating that the judge has declared open season on religious freedom. "Public universities are imposing the ideological stances of private groups on their students," stated ADF's legal counsel. "If you don't comply, you will be kicked out. It's scary stuff and it's not a difficult thing to see what's coming down the pike."

Indeed, Ward's case is not unique. Jennifer Keeton has brought a suit against Augusta University in Georgia for the same issue. Keeton, a 24-year-old working toward her masters in school counseling, openly expressed her view that homosexuals and transgendered persons are making a lifestyle choice rather than simply living in a "state of being." The university has since informed her that she will have to leave the program unless she changes her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct." Both schools have issued generic statements that they do not discriminate based on a person's religion -- at least if that religion is acceptable to the benevolent despots in charge.

Faith and Family: Obama Skips Scouts for Daytime TV

Perhaps this was simply a question of core audience. Since 1937, when the Boy Scout Jamboree was launched, the president of the United States (who serves as Honorary Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America) has been invited to speak at the event. While it's not unprecedented for presidents to skip the event -- for example, George W. Bush missed out in 2001 due to bad weather and Ronald Reagan never attended a Jamboree in person -- Barack Obama has ignited protest because he missed the event due to a scheduling conflict: His appearance on the daytime gabfest "The View," followed by fundraising stops while in New York City. According to the Media Research Center, "This appearance [on "The View"] will mark the first time in history that a sitting president will be on a daytime talk show."

Instead, Boy Scouts from across the country saw Barack Obama on video addressing them with a canned message of Hope 'n' Change™ while millions of Americans who presumably have nothing more pressing to do but watch daytime television were treated to the fawning glorification of Obama by the show's mostly leftist cast and studio audience.

Come to think of it, the Boy Scouts weren't missing much. With the moral standards of the 100-year-old organization constantly battered by Obama's minions and allies, perhaps it's best that he kept his distance from the gathering and hung out with a crowd that understood his need and desire for admiration. It was one less problem the Boy Scouts had to "Be Prepared" for.

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

"We [African-Americans] are sort of a mongrel people. I mean we're all kinds of mixed up." --Barack Obama on "The View"

So we guess it's somewhat of a mischaracterization to refer to him as the first black president.

In other news, you can add your name to the president's birthday card before Aug. 4. We're sure Patriot readers will be glad to send him a personal note, as well. (Just try to withhold the profanity.) Once you sign it, you'll be redirected to a page asking for donations to the Democrat National Committee.

First Lady Michelle Obama is behind the effort, perhaps to make up for the fact that she and daughter Sasha, along with their entourage, will be occupying some 30 rooms at a five-star hotel in Spain on Barack's b-day. Jim Lindgren, a professor at Northwestern Law School, got it right when he observed, "[A]sking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader's birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president's birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear."

And Last...

Former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod announced Thursday that she'll sue conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart for posting edited video of her racial remarks before the NAACP. Sherrod was hastily fired by the White House because of the remarks, though the administration has since offered her a new job, which she is still "considering."

Sherrod has become something of a celebrity since her firing. In remarks before the National Association of Black Journalists, she said, "Young African-Americans, young whites, too, we've done such a job of trying to be mainstream that we push things under the rug that we need to talk about. And then we get to situations like this." (We're wondering if she has plans to speak to the National Association of White Journalists.) She concluded, "I truly believe that we can come together in this country. But you don't [come together] by not talking to each other. You don't get there by pushing things under the rug." Apparently, she believes, we'll get there by suing each other.

Options

Comments

Bob W

Why doesn't this ruling surprise me with a Clinton Appointed, leftist liberal judge?

What ever happen to enforcing the laws, following the constitution, interpreting the law as written?

Judges should base decisions on the rule of law, not on their partisan political beliefs and affiliations.

"Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, Susan Bolton, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Our country is being viciously attacked from within by a severely ruined legal system and because our judges, instead of interpreting the law, interject their own moralities and activist beliefs, good and bad, into legal decisions made.

I still say a revolution is needed. Change will obviously never come about through supposed "democratic" processes.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 11:15:18 AM

Gulliver

If I get cancer, I want to go to Libya for treatment because of the amazing recovery of al-Megrahi.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 11:43:44 AM

Neita

I just don't get it. WHY is the ACLU trying to force Americans to snuggle up to people who are breaking FEDERAL LAW by coming into our country illegally? One wonders...if an intruder came, uninvited, into one of the ACLU's member's homes, would they come flying downstairs to check on the noise, discover the intrusion, see the intruder standing there DEMANDING food, medical help, that all communication be in HIS language, and then demanding that he immediately become a member of the household into which he's intruded...would that ACLU member be as agreeable to housing and protecting, a fleeing felon?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 11:44:46 AM

Sheila Simmons

Constitution Says: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction means the power to conduct the trial of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you.

See where it says, State of Arizona? And Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court original Jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you...

Posted July 30, 2010 at 11:46:06 AM

John B

When I was in scouting, had someone of the character of "Dear Leader" visited my campsite, we'd have just sent him to another looking for some prop wash, pigeon milk, or a left-handed smoke shifter.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 11:47:04 AM

Steve B

When it comes to Charles Rangle, one has to wonder if he will take up the mantra of his predecessor.

"Keep the faith, Baby!" Adam Clayton Powell

Seems like he some ethics issues also.......

Posted July 30, 2010 at 11:55:30 AM

Norm from GA

Imagine if all Massachusetts Electorial votes had to go with the more popular candidate in 1972...

McGovern would have REALLY looked bad...

Posted July 30, 2010 at 12:04:31 PM

Karoloynn Ruppert

on the new(are you joking) 100,000.oo obama bill; Is this the new TP?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 12:05:14 PM

Marvin

Law enforcement can still verify the identity

of people when they are stopped and retain the

ones that don't check out.

To bad Obama's background can't be checked out.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 12:17:49 PM

DGHarrison

I have to wonder what public universities would do with someone who, as a Satanist, claims that he embraces homosexual behavior rather than opposing it as Christians do. Why do Christians oppose the behavior except on religious grounds -- because practitioner's souls may be lost. And why would a Satanist embrace it except on religious grounds -- because souls may be lost.

If I were to proclaim that as a Satanist, I relish homosexuality and am happy to see so many souls destined for Hades, would I be expelled?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 12:24:03 PM

Martin

Looks like an alley in south central L.A.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 12:29:33 PM

Jim C

The health care tax on gold exchsnge -- How can you tax barter? When people trade one item for another of equal or greater value, there is no sales or exchange tax. The real value of gold coins is stated on them for the currency they are. So if I have a dollar or a twenty dollar coin and I exchange it for other currency of equal or similar value, how is that a taxable exchange? Paper money is collectible and has a numismatic value above and beyond its denominational value. When you trade a car in for a newer car, the value of the used car comes off of the cost of the new one and no tax is owed on that part of the exchange. The tax is owed on the cash difference. Therefore, if I trade one coin for a thousand and its a barter exchange - there is no difference to tax - It is a like for like exchange.......

Posted July 30, 2010 at 12:41:30 PM

Gregg Romens

In the 7/30 Digest, you said "the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but won the Electoral College". Curiously, at the time, an email went around listing the popular vote tallies from each individual Secretary of State websites, and showed that GWB also won the popular vote. I personally checked a few of the totals in that email, and they were correct. Could this "Bush stole the election" be a MSM myth taken root?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 12:58:33 PM

Jim C

As far as judge bolton's ruling on the Arizona immigration law goes ---- How is it that the federal law which is not enforced by the feds, says the same thing - but that's OK for Arizona law enforcement to know it exists AND they can hold / arrest people in violation of it -- but Arizona cannot have their own state law that does the same thing? It sounds like Governor Brewer should initiate another law with a different number to say the same thing. Then the federal doj can chase another case down the same path - That was ken salazar's tactic when it came to the drilling moratorium after the gulf oil rig disaster. Arizona and other state politician's should pursue the same tact and produce more legislation than the feds can follow -- And the only reason to do that is to prove that the rights of the individual states supercede the federal mandates from activist judges --------

Posted July 30, 2010 at 1:09:32 PM

Harold Wells

As a 32 year military veteran, my question is how does a Private, First Class get access to thousands of pages of classified information and "what is his need to know"? Whoever authorized his clearance is the person responsible for this mess.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 1:16:15 PM

E D Stewart Jr

Barack Hussein Obama, and all of his czars and other minions, need to be removed from the government of the USA before they destroy it. I've never seen such continual incompetence!!!

Posted July 30, 2010 at 1:16:44 PM

Hank

"We [African-Americans] are sort of a mongrel people. I mean we're all kinds of mixed up." --Barack Obama on "The View"

With this admission, Bill Clinton can retain the title as the First Black President and B.Hussein Obama can be called the First Mongrel President.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 1:26:36 PM

Julia Hope

The stages of society:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage'

Where do you think America is at now? I'd say we're beginning #8. But take hope, America, that means we can begin again at #1. I, for one, don't relish living through a revolution, but to bring this country back to its constitutional foundations, I will.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 1:27:51 PM

Jason Colorado Springs

John Kerry

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you moor your yacht in Rhode Island.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 2:18:11 PM

Wiley Raper

Since Obama says blacks are a mongrel people, I guess we should call him the first mongrel president.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 3:08:59 PM

Lee Robey

Outstanding article about the mosque at Ground Zero!When I see photos of the Twin Towers under attack, I also think of our Bicentennial when six million people lined the banks of the Hudson River and 30 thousand people sat in bleachers along the banks of Battery Park to cheer the EAGLE as the Barque led the Parade of the Tall Ships on the 4th of July 1976. We need to preserve our Heritage! Thanks again.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 3:17:51 PM

Ed Decker

The Rule of Law is Dead in America

I found the best definition of Rule of Law at Wikipedia.com. Let me share that insight:

Around 350 BCE. Plato wrote:

Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.

Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws." The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang:

"The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."

Now, let simply state why the Rule of Law is dead in America.

When the Federal Government sued the State of Arizona to stop them from enacting a law, citing Federal immigration laws, that made it illegal [forbidden by law or statute] to be an illegal alien in that state, and filed that lawsuit in a federally funded and controlled court, in front of a federally appointed judge, the rule of law died.

The Pandora’s box of Government suppression by legal manipulation has spilled forth and now opens up an era of rampant abuse of power by the power brokers of this and any like minded administration.

The State of Arizona and every state that borders Mexico will live with this as will the legal, taxpaying citizens of America as the borders continue to overflow and the health, education, welfare and penal systems of this country go even deeper into bankruptcy.

I guess I should apologize for my racial profiling of people illegally entering the country from Mexico, but I see few Chinese or Canadians illegally crossing into Arizona from the south.

And yes, before I get a hundred angry emails, we do need worker Visas and a better, working immigration policy, but the folks in Washington won’t do the job. What on earth are the States that are being over-run to do?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 3:24:18 PM

D.j. Cope

It is time to ignore the will of the federal government. Each state will have to stand and fight if need be. When the Feds are violating their own laws and the constitution, it is time to call their bluff. Let's see if they want to get into civil war with one of

The states. This would be the spark that ignites the change this country needs. I can see it all now, the surrounding states would jump in, it would explode into massive civil war, or at least we would see who blinks first, the citizens or the Feds. But alas, it would not be any current leaders, it would be a strong civilian leader. We shall see if we bend over or stand up like men. What are the Feds going to do arrest all the governors, I don't think so. We need to march on Washington and arrest them and try them for treason.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 4:21:47 PM

George R. Clark

I was just wondering if anyone at Patriot Post read the GLOBE Newspaper August 2, 2010 edition?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 4:22:14 PM

Dick Marple

A quick check of Ms. Boltons history reveals she is a mere Magistrate. Magistrates were given the additional title of "judge" in early 1990's, believed by many to confuse the people. Magistrates are NOT constitutional Article III judges. They are appointed for 8 years ONLY and must, as employees of the municipal corporation defined in 28 USC 3002(15), pay Income Tax, Social Security and Medicare. Since they are "employees" acting as "officers"in an "Administrative Tribunal" their jurisdiction is limited to administering to the commercial contracts that exist with the corporate Federal government. They cannot hear a criminal case but a misdemeanor may be tried if the defendant contracts away his constitutional Rights and enters into a "PLEA BARGAIN", which is a "CONTRACT". This, and only this extends a Magistrates jurisdiction.

It appears to many that Ms. Bolton has unlawfully exceeded her delegated jurisdiction and by doing so, has exposed herself to the loss of judicial immunity. Perhaps some loyal constitutional lawyer will sue her for the damages she has caused the sovereign Nation/State we know as Arizona.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 5:19:12 PM

Harold (Wyatt)

They say that you learn something new everyday, well in the last couple of days I have learned that if you want to break the law, become a DEMOCRAT. They don't have to obey the law or follow the Constitution. If you are a Kepublican or like me, an Independant they will get you for it all. If they continue following this line they won't need elections anymore. Hence Dictatorship, but I think that is what they want now.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 5:49:35 PM

burrman

If Manning is guilty, he needs to HANG!

Posted July 30, 2010 at 7:00:03 PM

Richard White

To Dick Marple et al:

Good work, but there is more fundamental law than that. I am no lawyer, but I can read the Constitution. Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

So even if Ms Bolton were a certified, card-carrying District Court judge, she would still have no jursdiction.

Why haven't the AZ attorneys noticed this?

The AZ authorities would be within their rights to disregard Ms Bolton's ruling altogether, as she has no jurisdiction, just as they would disregard a ruling by some court in, say, Rhode Island.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 7:29:15 PM

John

It is readily apparent that the term " Functional Literacy" has no meaning in this administration. There is a direct opposite to common sense " Ya can't fix Stupid". Come November PLEASE VOTE them all out.

I am reminded of the car commercial where the monkey is dancing and the background music is " How ya like me now". The administration is not a car ad nor are the results and damage to OUR BELOVED COUNTRY funny, glib nor humorous.

SEMPER FIDELIS

Posted July 30, 2010 at 7:39:40 PM

John Zee

How unfortunate that, yet again, the conservative mindset has allowed the liberal "thinkers" to pull the rug from underfoot. Breitbart's unseemly and, certainly, unjournalistic nattering has smudged the already black eyes of the Republican party. Shirley Sherrod did nothing wrong, but was crucified by the improper editing of a well-meaning speech. Now she is being guided by the carpet-pulling in the NAACP and the eternal camera conscious naysayers on the left. Her expected lawsuit is of little value except to keep the race issue simmering on the front burner where it can be dipped into by those who dwell and profit by its very existence. Her husband and spiritual adviser would be doing her and the cause a great deal of good if he simply suggested she might ask, in the quiet of the home, "WWJD?". There is a time for healing and this might be it. Meanwhile, horse-whipping behind the barn just might get Breitbart back in the pack. For now he is a pariah on the badly stained escutcheon of the Republican party. They hardly need his input to look bad. The party has become masters of their own demise.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 9:24:01 PM

Thomas

The picture accompanying the Arizona story has circulated on the internet. According to Snopes.com, it is a real picture with an inaccurate description.

Another story has gone around about Snopes being run by liberals who slant their version of the truth.

What can you tell me?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 9:30:59 PM

W.T. Door

A mosque at Ground Zero. Great. Next we’ll have a Japanese Shinto shrine erected on Ford Island next to the USS ARIZONA memorial. Of course, the battleship MISSOURI must be moved out of Pearl Harbor since it was on its foc'sl the surrendar was signed, and thus it’s presence might offend worshippers at the new shrine.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 9:52:47 PM

W.T. Door

Student Expelled for Beliefs on Homosexuality

“We have to wonder if she would be expelled if she were Muslim.” Not bloody likely, but yes, if justice were served. Doesn’t Sharia law prescribe an “off with his head” policy for homosexuality?

Posted July 30, 2010 at 9:57:23 PM

Vernon Clayson

All of the frenzy is directed toward immigrants from south of the border, mostly Hispanic, but an amnesty can hardly be expected to be race or nationality specific. It will by its nature include any number of persons in the US illegally, and that includes Muslims and others heretofore

under the radar. I'm not questioning Obama's eligibility, there's no way to rid ourselves of him, but perhaps this is as much a factor in his interest in illegal immigrants as gaining voters.

Posted July 30, 2010 at 11:52:00 PM

E.A.U.M.

We have a president who is bypassing congress at an increasing rate on his way to transforming the presidency into a lifetime position.

We have a mounument to terrorism going up at ground zero.

We have illegal aliens taking to the streets of our cities with the blessing of our president and his increasingly anti-American Democratic Party who no longer take the oath to protect America and it citizen's literally.

We have an ongoing assault by the left on America's Christian religion.

We have an American media that is begining to resemble the media of the old Soviet Union.

We have an increasing number of anti-American snot nose youth who are to stupid to realize that they are supporting a dangerous ideology that will eventually enslave them.

We have a constitution that is open to interpatation by the ACLU and the left.

We have an immigration dept that is hell bent on flooding America with third worldism.

And we have a society were three quarters of us are simply oblivious to what is going on.

I could go on and on, but I dont want to demoralize myself any further.

I am starting to realize that the best investment I can possibly make in this trying time, is an assortment of assault weapons to protect my family and neighbors for the inevitable chaos that is just outside our front door.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 3:26:47 AM

Carol

When is a judge not a judge? When she is a magistrate! aka Susan Bolton.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 7:09:49 AM

William V Wood

In reference to Judge Bolton and her opinion of the Arizona immigration law, I have a question.

Am I reading the Constitution correctly? Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 says that this case could only be heard by the Supreme Court and not a inferior court. If my reading is correct, Holder should be removed from office and charged with gross civil rights violations and Bolton should be impeached and charged with the same.

Thanks for what you do to educate.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 9:02:27 AM

Ann

Why do I keep seeing, even on sites like yours that should know better, the charge that Breitbart showed "edited" video of Shirley Sherrod? The video was NOT edited. It was an *excerpt.* I can see why leftist news sources and bloggers would use this charge to skew the narrative, but sites like this one should be telling the truth!

Posted July 31, 2010 at 10:01:36 AM

Chris J

I have but one question...Where were all the people protesting the Cordoba House Mosque when the hearings were going on? I am sure that there were notices posted somewhere obvious so that people could come and make comments and their objections known.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 10:32:56 AM

Richard

things ain't lookin good for selling our house, wish Barney Frank and Bill Clinton had not lowered the loan requirements in 1999 that let all the folk who could not afford a house think they could... wall streeters started peddling those sub-prime loans to the public... then the house buyers found out they could not afford the houses and foreclosures started and continue to this day..... Frank and Clinton thought they were helping their constituents afford a house so they could get in on the housing boom, but they collapsed the whole system and really hurt their constituents and everyone else... looks like the economy hasn't bottomed out yet .... so, we are sitting and watching much like you did in Maryland... obviously I am not voting Democrat in Nov.

I wish someone would do a news report on this and let the public know what the Democrats did.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 12:41:51 PM

William L. Clark 3rd

Dear Sir or madam;

I do not understand why no one in the media has not brought up Taff-hartley Act. With all that the Obama admin.is doing to help the Unions.

Please note the law states and forbade unions from contributing to any Political campaigns. This aspect of the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court.Who if I may ask is responsible for inforcing this Law? Obama ows a lot to the Unions for getting him elected.And my has he done a lot to help and payback the Unions forget about hurting we the American people.Please try to get this Taff-Hartley Act to the ears of the American people. Thank

Yours Truly

William Clark

Posted July 31, 2010 at 1:07:27 PM

Ruth Engquist

ANYONE WITH A BRAIN CAN SEE WHY OBA"ME,ME,ME" APPEARED ON THE VIEW.( NO ONE IN THE COUNTRY THINKS HE IS CUTER THAN HE HIMSELF THINKS HE IS.)HE DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK TO 400 LITTLE BOYS AFTER ALL BOY SCOUTS ARE TOO YOUNG TO VOTE. LETS ALL HOPE THEIR PARENTS REMEMBER COME ELECTION DAY ALSO HE HAD GREATER PLANS ON MEMORIAL DAY THAN TO HONOR OUR VETERANS.I HOPE VETERANS FAMILY REMEMBER THIS ALSO.

THIS MAN IS AGAINST ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING "AMERICAN" HE AND THE FAMILY ARE HAVING A HAY- DAY ENJOYING VACATIONS, GOLF, SHOPPING SPREES IN FRANCE. LOOKING OVER SPAIN ONLY NEED THIRTY (30)ROOMS TO HOUSE THEM ALL AND WHEN THEY GET HOME MORE VACATION TIME

THEY ARE LIVING LIKE KINGS ON TAXPAYER MONEY WHILE MOST OF US ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ONE MEAL A DAY SOME DON'T GET THAT.

ONE BIG QUESTION I HAVE ASKED BEFORE AND HAVEN'T GOTTEN AN ANSWER IS "WHY WAS THE DRILLING COMPANY WITH THE HIGHEST AND MOST ACCIDENTS, MOST MISHAPS, WORSE SAFETY REGULATIONS ALLOWED TO DRILL INSTEAD OF OTHER COMPANIES ? DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK THIS IS WIERD ?

Posted July 31, 2010 at 1:07:50 PM

Frank E.

07/30/10

We can asume by her Decision on the ARIZONA STATE

LAW, SHE'S CLINTON LIBERAL JUDGE,WHO WOULD REFER

to the CONSTITITION only when she thinks it might

agree with her LIBERAL position.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 3:04:30 PM

Ruth Ann Wilson

"The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore ... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, 1823 Patriot Post

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rival-ship, which will ever subsist between them." --Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1789

Sheila Simmons writes:

“Constitution Says: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction means the power to conduct the trial of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you.

See where it says, State of Arizona? And Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court original Jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you…”

As you state , Sheila Simmons, the wording of the Constitution indicates the “Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction of this case.” Because it is a “case of Public Minister (Jan Brewer) and the State is Party to the case. “ The above mentioned quotes from the Founders underscore the fact, the Founders “never intended that the Federal Government sue a State”????!!!!!!!

Why ? Because they had “enumerated powers” which were limited at the Federal Level, the Federal Level had it’s boundaries, “enumerated” and that is all well and good, until we have these “usurpers” who have come to accept the “interpretation that the Federal Level are the “Big Boys” and the States are the “red-headed step children.” Plus the Feds introduce “Federal Revenue Sharing ie the Grant System” to add MONEY to this mix, and here we are. The Dept. of Justice(Unelected, appointed head) under the “Office of the President” suing a State.

I am only a common, God-fearing citizen but the way I see this, is Upside down, turned all around and convoluted. Jurisdiction is wrong. Federal level suing the State is wrong. Federal level joining with Foreign government (Mexico) against a State. To add insult to injury, Arizona ONLY wants the Federal level to “Secure the Border”, it is the Federal level that is in “dereliction of their duty” and now, Arizona is made to be the “whipping child” of this judiciary that doesn’t seem to be following the Constitution, which they are under solemn Oath before God to do.

Jefferson warned of a “Baneful judiciary subject to no man”, it was a terrifying thought to him and it is a terrifying thought to US because here we are.

For God & Country

The American

Posted July 31, 2010 at 3:26:47 PM

Robert USN, Ret

Sharpton,Jackson,Jones,Sherrod,Holder, Black Panthers, Rangel, now Waters, all caught up in mischief of one sort or another---some of it quite long term, all of it swept under the rug, or mimimized. There is a common characterisic among those folks. Aside from being black --- seems to be a demonstration; "confronting me with deeds of mischief is a losing game." There is emerging a general sense that blacks particularly, and others generally, are empowered by the election of a (semi) black President. He leads the chant of "--it is someone else's fault, not mine, yours." I am neutral--my perception of others has to do with their demonstration, not their ancestry. "A strength carried to extrem becomes a weakness." Civil rights, as an act, is being prostituted. Not for equality, but for a reversal of what the act was intended to terminate. Rangel is the current 'poster boy' for TERM LIMITS!

Posted July 31, 2010 at 3:44:45 PM

wendy

ms. sherrod should be ashamed and disgusted by her own behavior when she responded to mr. breitbart by spewing vitriolic and caustic words about him like "he just wants to see us all back to being slaves ".

excuse me shirley, your ignorance is showing.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 4:53:46 PM

wendy

why is it that nobody seems to want to talk about the islamic practice of building a mosque on top of ground that it had conquered? seems like a small step in the direction of islams intentions for America. if they have their way they will be building mosques all over this country, as they build their calaphate.

THIS IS AMERICA, A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!!! WE DONT NEED NO STINKING MOSQUES !!

Posted July 31, 2010 at 5:03:49 PM

Dani

I'm sure I'm looking at the situation way too simplistically, but from my understanding the Taliban get their money from growing and harvesting poppy crops for drug use. Why don't we just spray herbicide on all of the poppy fields with a product that keeps anything from growing on the fields for many years and then just leave? Seems like it would save us billions, keep the Taliban from the money they need for weapons, and maybe cut down on drug use around the world. It's not like we'd be starving anyone - they're not growing edible crops on the fields. Seems like we might use the same tactic around the world on marijuana fields, field used to grow cocaine plants, and the like, too. Just a thought.

Posted July 31, 2010 at 9:56:33 PM

Homer

There is NO room for godless Muslims in this country! Mosques need to be outlawed! People don't realize that Muslims are NOT peaceful people and the religion of Islam is NOT a peaceful people of religion! Just read the history of Muslims! All the terrorists and terrorist acts are and were perpetrated by a Muslim! See for yourself! If you are so blind that you will not see, then you will find out the facts and it may be to late! I on the other hand, KNOW and am sure that Muslims are a bloody people and bloody killers. Saddam Hussein killed 8 million of his own people in the Iran/Iraq war! Look at all the destruction that has come form the Muslim nations! Don't be so foolish so as to believe their rhetoric and lies! They are deceptive, and that is all they know! I am telling and warning you, BE NOT DECEIVED, Bringing Muslims into this country is like introducing cancer into your body or giving yourself an "Aids" tainted blood translation! It will eventually kill you! BE NOT DECEIVED and NEVER trust or turn your back on a Muslim, you could wind up dead!!!

Posted August 1, 2010 at 8:57:08 AM

Ken Cooksey

Mrs Sherrod seems to be up to her neck in govt. money paid out to black farmers and those that wanted to become farmers. Her comments seem to be just the tip of the iceberg that will become another scandal

Posted August 1, 2010 at 3:41:45 PM

Bruce

NOW THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS, VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW BY THEIR MERE PRESENCE ON US SOIL, ARE IMMIGRANTS, US CITIZENS HAVE NO RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY. THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN.

Posted August 1, 2010 at 9:30:24 PM

Anne Cross

I have "recruited" more and more faithful conservative followers to the Post and consider it a part of my responsibility as a citizen to add "how to subscribe" info to all my emails.

I look forward to receiving copies of Essential Liberty which I have already earmarked for some young conservative daughters of friends whose schools, while doing a better job than most, don't cover the Constitution as they should.

Keep up the good work...so many of us depend on you. Chattanooga, TN Anne

Posted August 1, 2010 at 9:55:29 PM

Kerry in Des Moines,IA

I don't know why judges are LIFE appointed!!???

In Iowa, every two years (on election day in November) ALL judges are on the ballot. The simple question is this: shall the following judge be retained? Citizens can vote "yes" or "no".

Why can't we do this with Federal Judges????????????

THIS is yet something else we should fight for and DEMAND this coming November!!!!!!!

Posted August 2, 2010 at 2:42:44 PM

Rifleman

Discovery Announcement: The densest element in the known Universe has been found!

PELOSIUM:

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to Science. The new element has been named Pelosium. Pelosium has one Neutron, 12 Assistant Neutrons, 75 Deputy Neutrons and 224 Assistant Deputy Neutrons, giving it an Atomic Mass of 311.

These particles are held together by dark forces called Morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called Peons.

The symbol of Pelosium is PU.

Pelosium's mass actually increases over time, as Morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become Assistant Deputy Neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of Isodopes.

This characteristic of Moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever Morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude of ever more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many Peons but twice as many Morons as Pelosium.

Posted August 3, 2010 at 4:58:41 PM

winsomeways

Still laughing at Rifleman's description of "Pelosium". Another description might be Huxley's "Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons", though "Semi" might be too kind.

Remember November!

Posted August 4, 2010 at 7:26:02 PM

Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)

Navigation

  • Support
  • Shop
  • Essential Liberty Class Action Lawsuit
  • The Patriot Foundation Trust
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post

Patriot Headline Report

The Right Opinion

More Opinion

Navigation

  • Essential Liberty
  • Essential Liberty
  • Tea Party Primer
  • Tea Party Pace Car

Grassroots Commentary

More Commentary

Policy and Analysis

Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher

The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund