Arkansas City will not be the focus now, but we can still talk about the town. For now the blog is a blog in search of an identity. Considering what the new niche will be.
5-4 tells you how shaky our freedoms are in this country. Now President Obama wants to stack the court with a no-name lady who has zero judgeship experience. Know what she does have? A radical viewpoint. That's all it takes. She will be confirmed. They have the votes. Want to know the real irony? some of the Dems know this woman is no good, but they will vote to confirm anyway because "It's the party line". Something funny...Mayor Daley promises to pass new laws against guns, all the while he has armed bodyguards. What a joke. God help us.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I am glad it passed, but it is scray how close it was. Just think, if one more Supreme Court Justice retires or dies, Obama will have a majority of liberals on the court who care nothing about the constitution or the intent of the founding fathers. I wish the justices were required to state their position and reasoning. I would love to know how the ones who voted against it justify their decision. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty easy to understand in my book.
As for Kagan, she is a rubber stamp for Obama. Plain and simple. She has the same radical ideas that he has. This is where Obama is at his most dangerous: Appointing radicals to the Supreme court. With no term limits, they will be there for the next few decades, pushing the same radical agenda.
Lotsa national politics lately, JJ. Visits and posts should see a bump. >> The thing is, I took a break from politics, didn't mention it for a long time, but it didnt seem to matter. Whether i get into it or not, that seems to be what people want to talk about. Sometimes what i post on here doesnt affect what is posted much at all :)
I saw that article too. Nice spin. Trying to act like liberals are happy that one of their main causes was found unconstitutional. If you were thinking it was Obama's gun control stance that had most Americans upset, you are in for a rude awakening in November. I frankly cannot wait. I'm all giddy inside.
Kagan Has Some Explaining to Do Today By U.S. Congressmen TODD TIAHRT & LAMAR SMITH June 28, 2010 Today the Senate begins consideration of the lifetime appointment of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Critics have said that her judicial record is non-existent, and there are few clues to how she will rule on the country’s highest court. However, her past actions do signal her views on one of the most important issues likely to come before the Court in the near future: a state’s right to play a role in the enforcement of immigration laws. Here is what we know so far: In 2007, the state of Arizona passed an immigration law that allowed it to revoke the business licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. This provision was challenged but upheld in both the district court and even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, the Obama administration decided to challenge the 2007 Arizona immigration law and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the provision. But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The administration argued that Arizona’s law revoking the business licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants is unconstitutional. But this argument is completely baseless as the two lower courts already confirmed. Furthermore, still on the books today is a 1986 federal statute that created penalties for employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. This law specifically addresses the question at issue in the Kagan-backed litigation. Congress authorized states to revoke the business licenses of employers that intentionally hire illegal immigrants. So why has Kagan pursued such an aggressive, unconstitutional political agenda? The views expressed in the court brief are troubling given the Obama administration’s weak record on enforcing federal immigration laws. Compared to fiscal year 2008, the number of administrative arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in employer-sanctions cases has fallen by 80 percent, the number of criminal arrests has fallen by 68 percent, the number of indictments has fallen by 74 percent, and the number of criminal convictions has fallen by 75 percent. The Obama administration argues that it has increased the number of audits of employers. But audits do almost nothing to stop illegal immigration or discourage illegal hiring. Audits can result in fines, though employers consider them just the cost of doing business. Illegal workers are typically not arrested and are simply turned loose in the community to compete with U.S. citizens and legal immigrants for other jobs. When ICE does engage in worksite enforcement actions, it allows the illegal workers simply to walk down the street to the next employer to seek employment. If the federal government is abdicating its responsibility to enforce our immigrations laws, how can the administration protest when individual states seek to protect their residents? Arizona is lawfully doing exactly what it has to do to protect legal workers and compensate for the failure of the Obama administration to enforce federal immigration laws. Kagan has shown that she is hostile to a states’ rights to enforce immigration laws and may be putting a liberal political agenda above the law and ahead of the people. Can Kagan be objective and set aside her personal vides and support the U.S. Constitution, or will she be another rubber stamp for President Obama’s radical agenda? With the Supreme Court likely to be asked to rule on these issues soon—the American people deserve to know the answers to these questions. Even more so, the American people deserve to have Supreme Court decisions rendered by justices who adhere to the Constitution, not politics.
5-4 tells you how shaky our freedoms are in this country. Now President Obama wants to stack the court with a no-name lady who has zero judgeship experience. Know what she does have? A radical viewpoint. That's all it takes. She will be confirmed. They have the votes. Want to know the real irony? some of the Dems know this woman is no good, but they will vote to confirm anyway because "It's the party line". Something funny...Mayor Daley promises to pass new laws against guns, all the while he has armed bodyguards. What a joke. God help us.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 8:12,
ReplyDeleteYou took the words right out of my mouth. I am glad it passed, but it is scray how close it was. Just think, if one more Supreme Court Justice retires or dies, Obama will have a majority of liberals on the court who care nothing about the constitution or the intent of the founding fathers. I wish the justices were required to state their position and reasoning. I would love to know how the ones who voted against it justify their decision. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty easy to understand in my book.
As for Kagan, she is a rubber stamp for Obama. Plain and simple. She has the same radical ideas that he has. This is where Obama is at his most dangerous: Appointing radicals to the Supreme court. With no term limits, they will be there for the next few decades, pushing the same radical agenda.
*scary
ReplyDeleteLotsa national politics lately, JJ. Visits and posts should see a bump...as long as opposing viewpoints are presented. I will oblige.
ReplyDeleteThe real winners are Dems who no longer have to fight gun control as an election issue.
"DEYS COMIN FER MAH GUNS"
"No, no, they can't actually do that."
"YES DEY CAN BECAUSE FOX NEWS SARAH PALIN"
One wedge issue down. This is why Republicans don't really want to ban abortion. If abortion wasn't legal, they wouldn't get any damn votes.
Lotsa national politics lately, JJ. Visits and posts should see a bump.
ReplyDelete>>
The thing is, I took a break from politics, didn't mention it for a long time, but it didnt seem to matter.
Whether i get into it or not, that seems to be what people want to talk about.
Sometimes what i post on here doesnt affect what is posted much at all :)
@1:19,
ReplyDeleteI saw that article too. Nice spin. Trying to act like liberals are happy that one of their main causes was found unconstitutional. If you were thinking it was Obama's gun control stance that had most Americans upset, you are in for a rude awakening in November. I frankly cannot wait. I'm all giddy inside.
Ive been on this board before - I know you are looking forward to the elections.
ReplyDeleteKagan Has Some Explaining to Do Today
ReplyDeleteBy U.S. Congressmen TODD TIAHRT & LAMAR SMITH
June 28, 2010
Today the Senate begins consideration of the lifetime appointment of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Critics have said that her judicial record is non-existent, and there are few clues to how she will rule on the country’s highest court. However, her past actions do signal her views on one of the most important issues likely to come before the Court in the near future: a state’s right to play a role in the enforcement of immigration laws.
Here is what we know so far:
In 2007, the state of Arizona passed an immigration law that allowed it to revoke the business licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. This provision was challenged but upheld in both the district court and even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Most recently, the Obama administration decided to challenge the 2007 Arizona immigration law and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the provision. But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The administration argued that Arizona’s law revoking the business licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants is unconstitutional. But this argument is completely baseless as the two lower courts already confirmed.
Furthermore, still on the books today is a 1986 federal statute that created penalties for employers that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. This law specifically addresses the question at issue in the Kagan-backed litigation. Congress authorized states to revoke the business licenses of employers that intentionally hire illegal immigrants. So why has Kagan pursued such an aggressive, unconstitutional political agenda?
The views expressed in the court brief are troubling given the Obama administration’s weak record on enforcing federal immigration laws. Compared to fiscal year 2008, the number of administrative arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in employer-sanctions cases has fallen by 80 percent, the number of criminal arrests has fallen by 68 percent, the number of indictments has fallen by 74 percent, and the number of criminal convictions has fallen by 75 percent.
The Obama administration argues that it has increased the number of audits of employers. But audits do almost nothing to stop illegal immigration or discourage illegal hiring. Audits can result in fines, though employers consider them just the cost of doing business. Illegal workers are typically not arrested and are simply turned loose in the community to compete with U.S. citizens and legal immigrants for other jobs.
When ICE does engage in worksite enforcement actions, it allows the illegal workers simply to walk down the street to the next employer to seek employment. If the federal government is abdicating its responsibility to enforce our immigrations laws, how can the administration protest when individual states seek to protect their residents?
Arizona is lawfully doing exactly what it has to do to protect legal workers and compensate for the failure of the Obama administration to enforce federal immigration laws. Kagan has shown that she is hostile to a states’ rights to enforce immigration laws and may be putting a liberal political agenda above the law and ahead of the people.
Can Kagan be objective and set aside her personal vides and support the U.S. Constitution, or will she be another rubber stamp for President Obama’s radical agenda? With the Supreme Court likely to be asked to rule on these issues soon—the American people deserve to know the answers to these questions. Even more so, the American people deserve to have Supreme Court decisions rendered by justices who adhere to the Constitution, not politics.
Dictators prefere an unarmed populace...
ReplyDeleteViva la revolucion!!!