Thursday, August 18, 2011

Ruminations on "Obama Halts Some Immigration Cases"

In response to the news today about "Obama Halts Some Immigration Cases"

Neither the president of the United States nor anyone in Homeland Security has the authority or any granted powers to dictate the courts' dockets.

In terms of Constitutional law, Obama and Napolitano have no more authority or legal influence to make this announcement than I do. Homeland Security is ostensibly a law enforcement agency (or collection of law enforcement agencies). The president is in the Executive branch. Neither has any authority to dictate what the Judicial branch can do or not do.

Oh, that's right. Obama has once again invoked the nana-nana-boo-boo rule ("Nana-nana-boo-boo, I'll do whatever I want and you can't stop me").

Forget about elections. At what point does a federal court, or a congressional impeachment hearing, prosecute this dangerous man for crimes against the Constitution?
Illegal usurpation of powers reserved for the Judiciary. Check.
Illegal use of military force against a sovereign nation (Libya), against the explicit will of Congress. Check.
Illegal use of ungranted powers to impose his will upon the people explicitly against Congressional vote (use of the EPA to create carbon punishments). Check.
Illegal executive branch intrusion into legally formed contracts. (Takeover of GM and use of new incorporation to invalidate equity holders' shareholder votes and ownership of the company.) Check.
Illegal commitments to foreign powers. (Greenhouse emissions commitments against explicit congressional orders and a legal congressional vote against such commitments). Check.
Willfully and knowingly signing an illegal and unconstitutional bill into law. (Health care bill) Check.
Illegal grants of law-making and enforcement powers to unelected government employees. (Appointments of his "czars"). Check.

The man is a dangerous socialist whose personal and organizational agenda is to willfully and deliberately weaken the United States economically in order to restrain and diminish its influence over other governments and peoples of the world. His entire life has been spent as an extreme radical, including years as a young adult where he explicitly worked toward a socialist revolution and the overthrow of the United States government. He has demonstrated clearly and consistently that he does not consider himself to be bound by the enumerated powers of the Constitution nor his Oath of Office, and that he will use federal government power to implement much of the communist manifesto. He has used federal power to usurp the sources of capital (Wall St.,bank, and insurance bailouts), to take over means of production (GM, Chrysler bailouts, union pandering), and to redistribute wealth (Health care law). He has also, most frighteningly of all, ordered acts of force and war by the United States military unilaterally and against Congress's explicitly voted wishes, against a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war (Libya), leading one to wonder whether we will see tanks defending an illegal occupation of the White House after November 2012.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

The Bizarre World View of Barry Obama


From the Wall Street Journal at

We have before us now the spectacle of Jihadi Abdulmutallab, lawyered up, with full rights as though a U.S. criminal defendant. The impossibly expensive, dangerous, and unavoidably chaotic trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and associates still lies ahead, slated for a Manhattan courtroom. Even now a majority of Americans can't fathom the reason for their government's insistence that the agents chiefly responsible for the 9/11 attack be tried under the U.S. criminal justice system with all due rights and constitutional privileges, instead of in a military court. That insistence itself is answer enough—an unforgettable testament to the ideological drives and related evasions of reality that shape this administration's view of the world.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

John Galt Predicts the Rise of Obama in 1957

“Every dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them to surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his wishes, his whims-as his consciousness is surrendered to theirs. He wants to deal with men by means of faith and force-he finds no satisfaction in their consent if he must earn it by means of facts and reason. Reason is the enemy he dreads and, simultaneously, considers precarious: reason, to him, is a means of deception, he feels that men possess some power more potent than reason-and only their causeless belief or their forced obedience can give him a sense of security, a proof that he has gained control of the mystic endowment he lacked. His lust is to command, not to convince: conviction requires an act of independence and press on the absolute of an objective reality. What he seeks is power over reality and over men’s means of perceiving it, their mind, the power to interpose his will between existence and consciousness, as if, by agreeing to fake the reality he orders them to fake, men would, in fact, create it."

Friday, December 18, 2009

They All Screamed for Ice Cream

From a teacher in the Nashville area:

"We are worried about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream"

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now is was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely could have said more...

. She did not have to.

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream. Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds.
They wanted ice cream. The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone ---
That they have not first taken away from someone else

Man's Rights - Americans' Rights

“You who’ve lost the concept of a right, you who swing in impotent evasiveness between the claim that rights are a gift of God, a supernatural gift to be taken on faith, or the claim that rights are a gift of society, to be broken at its arbitrary whim-the source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A-and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."

Monday, November 30, 2009

I Refuse to Apologize for My Success

"I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbors and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my ability - I refuse to apologize for my success - I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other."
  • Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

The Sanction of the Victim

"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they believe to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

Hank Rearden, in Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand