Limbaugh: Chicago Politics Targets High Court

"We will punish our enemies."  Barack Obama, 2010  

David Limbaugh is on to something.  The Community-Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, a prototypical Chicago thug, gets angry when opposed even if the action taken is not actually opposition but merely that of someone following of the Constitution.  Actually, any impediment to his agenda makes him angry and when that happens you can expect crowds of union members in front of your house and on your front yard carrying angry signs.  They will be accompanied, of course, anonymous threats against you and your family.

The Community-Organizer-in-Chief, of course, will not be a part of it as he will have done nothing but show his displeasure at your actions.  And while you're having to deal with all kinds of disruption, picketing, angry, profane shouts and threats of violence, he'll be publicly dining in his residence saying, if asked, with a wan smile, "It's a shame that people became angry over that.  Pity.  Waiter!  More wine, please."

"I keep tellin' yous guys, we know how to handle things in Chicago."  

To be sure, Obama is no Al Capone, but I have a hard time believing that Al wouldn't have approved of the manner in which Obama attacks those he perceives as enemies and the Supreme Court, when it rules against his wishes, is clearly that.  Obama is on record as referring to political opponents as "our enemy" so why does anyone think that he would consider a Supreme Court that opposes his goals a friend?  The answer is, of course, that he doesn't.  They are the enemy to be attacked until he has been able to stuff it with his like-minded appointees and until then, his minions will mount attack after attack in hopes of causing the justices who don't toe the line to hesitate or change course.

That's The Chicago Way.

Follow the title link for David Limbaugh's view.

Justice Thomas' Wife Seeks Anita Hill Apology

For the record, I've never believed Anita Hill.  It was too patently obvious that the Democrats were using her in an attempt to derail the nomination of a Conservative Minority Justice for we all know that the Democrats are the only champions of the minorities in America.  It was just so unseemly to them that a black man could be a conservative after Democrats have worked so hard to convince minorities that only Democrats were deserving of their support.  For that reason they pulled out all stops and played every dirty trick in the book in an attempt to derail the nomination.  In their mind, only minorities who support the Democrat Party are intelligent enough for high government office.  Black, Hispanic or Asian Conservatives are to be reviled, insulted and destroyed as fast as possible and by any means lest the Democrat underclass see that the Democrats are preaching a false message.

I find it interesting that Anita Hill immediately contacted Brandeis University Campus Security and the FBI over a voice mail when it was clearly a most civil message and was extending an "olive branch."  Interesting, but to be expected of a Democrat ideologue who attacked a former employer because he was black, a conservative and being nominated to the Supreme Court.  The charges were shown to be specious, at best and, as we now know, Justice Clarence Thomas is an outstanding thoughtful and intelligent Supreme Court Justice.

Hill is to be pitied rather than reviled.  She was used by the Democrat establishment then and her reward was rather small before she faded back into obscurity where she so richly belongs.  That she owes Justice Thomas and his wife an apology goes without saying.  As my dear mother–God rest her soul–would say: That she reacted the way she did shows only the depth of her guilt in the matter.  Were that not so, she would have nothing to fear from Mrs. Thomas.

Follow the link for the story.

Judge Permits Virginia Health Care Law Challenge to Continue

The Department of Justice loses the first round!  This is a small step in the right direction for all Americans and the journey is sure to end at the Supreme Court where there will be, I predict, a 5-4 ruling in favor of Virginia.

Pelosi, Reid and Obama are sure to be dismayed by this ruling and even though they will put up a good face, you and I both know that they were hoping against hope that they could quash the Virginia challenge quickly so as to take the wind from the sails of the challenge in Florida.

Follow the link for the story.

Elena Kagan: Prevaricating Princess of Partial Birth

The linked article from the American Spectator leads you to another link and finally to an excellent investigation into the statements of Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings.  There is only on conclusion that can be drawn:  Like Bill Clinton, she is not to be believed under oath.

Can we afford to have a Supreme Court Justice with so little ethics?  It is clear that Obama picked her more for her ideology than for her legal qualifications.  We must urge our Senators to vote no on her confirmation.

Follow the link for more.

Will Senate Democrats Stifle Free Speech?

Will Senate Democrats Stifle Free Speech?

The Neo-Lib Democrats know that DISCLOSE won't pass Constitutional muster but they don't care. They only want it in place for November and, given that the Supreme Court is on recess until the first Monday in October, the damage will be done even if the Supreme Court were to make a ruling on the very first day of its return. This is pure censorship and it's being done by Pelosi and Reid with the backing of the White House.

Contact your Senators today and tell them that they must vote "NO" on DISCLOSE. It is a direct assault on the 1st Amendment.

Follow the link for the story.

Judges, Guns and Money: Part II

An excellent and recommended read.

Judges, Guns and Money: Part II

There is a reason that Neo-Lib Democrats disparage Justice Clarence Thomas: His indisputable intellect frightens them as it shatters their fondly held belief that all blacks must be loyal liberal Democrats in order to be considered intelligent. His opinions are extremely well-written and based in sound logic which maddens the Left and they do all they can to disparage him at every turn but cannot match him face-to-face.

Follow the link for an excellent read.

Pajamas Media » History Justifies Supreme Court Overturning Chicago Gun Ban

Pajamas Media » History Justifies Supreme Court Overturning Chicago Gun Ban

An excellent post from Pajamas Media on the racism of gun control. Despite the histrionics of Chicago's Mayor Daley, history absolutely does justify the overturning of Chicago's gun ban. To deny men and women the right to keep and bear arms is to deny them status as free people for absent that right they are merely slaves.

Follow the link for more.

As Harvard Law Dean, Kagan Did Not Require Study of U.S. Constitutional Law But Did Require Study of International and Foreign Law

How many extremely good reasons do we need before Elena Kagan is rejected?  That she held foreign and international law above the U.S. Constitution is enough of a reason in and of itself.

Write your Senators today and tell them to vote no on her confirmation.

Follow the link for the story.

Supreme Court Upholds Sex Offender Law

Sex offenders can now be held indefinitely if they are shown to continue to be dangerous if released.

Just think, you're friendly, neighborhood child rapist may have to stay in prison for a long, long time.  That is a good thing.

Follow the link for more.

Posted using ShareThis

Kagan Opposes Second Amendment Gun Rights

Kagan Opposes Second Amendment Gun Rights

More than enough reason to oppose Elena Kagan and to stop her nomination.

No one who respects the Bill of Rights should vote in favor of her nomination. She's for limiting the 1st Amendment and doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment applies to American citizens. We can't have Justices who are for only "some" of the Bill of Rights.

Follow the link for more.

Kagan, Obama, and the Harvard Legacy of Literary Fraud

Kagan, Obama, and the Harvard Legacy of Literary Fraud

It would seem that Elena Kagan has a soft spot in her heart for plagiarists and the intellectually dishonest IF they are from the 'intellectual' left. It's become clearer than ever as to why Obama picked her because she has demonstrated to Obama's closest mentors at Harvard that a liberal philosophy trumps ethics.

Elena Kagan is clearly not the centrist that the Obama Regime's talking points describe (which is dutifully repeated by the Left Stream Media). She is, like Obama, a left-wing ideologue who will do what ever it takes to push forward the liberal-progressive-socialist agenda and the Constitution be damned.

Is this the type of mentality that we want on the Supreme Court?

Follow the link for the story.






Then contact your Senators.

SCOTUS Nominee Kagan for ‘Redistribution of Speech’ (Diversity Czar Lloyd Must be Thrilled) | NewsBusters.org

SCOTUS Nominee Kagan for ‘Redistribution of Speech’ (Diversity Czar Lloyd Must be Thrilled) | NewsBusters.org

As Elena Kagan's antipathy toward free speech–or at least anything other than liberal free speech–is becoming clearer by the day and casts a huge doubt over her fitness for the Supreme Court. We cannot have a Justice that does not believe that speech, particularly political speech, must be free for all.

My concern is that the Republicans have been slow to pick-up on this and other issues and have been talking softly about the nominee. That should not be. You would think that after the way the liberal-progressive-socialist Democrats went about passing Obamacare they would have learned their lesson. I would hope that there will be 41 votes against Kagan's confirmation but I'm beginning to wonder about the current elected Republican's commitment to conservatism. Time will tell.

Follow the link for more.

American Thinker: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'... Anything about Shariah Law

American Thinker: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'... Anything about Shariah Law

Lest you forget, this is shari'ah law in practice.

The question remains: Does Elena Kagan hold American Law and the Constitution above other forms of jurisprudence? Or does she flirt with shari'ah law and think that somehow "it's cool?"

Follow the link for more.

Elena Kagan and the Yale-Harvard Nexus

Elena Kagan and the Yale-Harvard Nexus

The author makes a very good point in the linked article. We have long accepted the self-certified superiority of the Ivy League and look at our current financial situation and the problems on our southern border. Ivy Leaguers may be intelligent–and there are many who would argue that point–but they have shown a studied inability to solve the problems that we face. They are also very good at feathering their own nests but clearly could care less about We the People except in an abstract sort of way. Perhaps it is time to ensure that the Supreme Court has a truly varied composition that is more representative of the United States in general rather than the pastel shades that we are offered out of the Ivy League Axis. The Republicans, and any Democrats who still think with their own mind, should hold out for a Texan or someone from Oklahoma, Indiana or South Dakota. We cannot expect the President to nominate a Conservative for that is a fantasy, but surely there is a liberal-progressive-socialist Democrat out there in "fly-over" country that Obama would like and who would bring a true diversity to the Court that it currently lacks. And if there isn't, maybe we should start asking why?

Follow the link for a good read.

SCOTUS fight: Boxing Elena – By Michelle Malkin

The Politico and others are announcing that President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens.

The leftwing blogosphere is saying things like "disturbingly mainstream" however you should not doubt that Kagan is as far left as Obama.  And she has no, repeat no, judicial experience.  She's been an academic most of her legal career and has only 2 years of private lawyering experience and a year as Solicitor General.

She is not qualified.  But then again, neither was Justice Sotomayor.  There is one central trait that both Kagan and Sotomayor have in common other than gender:  They are both far, far left of center in their legal thought process and will help protect Obama's strides towards socialism.

She should not be confirmed.

Follow the link for an excellent post from Michelle Malkin.

Citizens United We Stand

"But I don't want to share free speech.  It's mine! It's mine!"

Liberal-progressive-socialist Democrats tout their love of free speech.  They love it, but like a whiney, spoiled baby, they don't want to share it.  The only thing they've ever been able to learn to share is other people's money.  They share that with great joy.

Fortunately the Supreme Court was there and called it correctly in the Citizens United case.  But, with the help and support of the Left Stream Media, President Barack Obama and the Obama Regime embarked on a Marxist-style campaign that began with the State of the Union address to again limit free speech for those corporations and businesses that weren't reliably "liberal "  This is evidenced by the fact that the Unions, those darlings of the liberal-progressive-socialist elite, are not restricted in the new bill.

Isn't that just like the Regime (or like any regime)?  Obama has told us that he wants everyone to just shut-up, listen and obey.  To him that makes things bi-partisan.  To us, that makes things partisan and dictatorial.  He wants to do it the way it was done in fascist states because that's where socialism is most comfortable.  The state is in control of everything and everybody is happy.

And the Constitution–which he clearly hates and ignores–says that we don't have to shut-up and listen.  It's called the 1st Amendment.  We have the right to freely express our political thoughts and, rest assured, we will continue doing that long after Obama is no longer in the White House.

Follow the link for an excellent read.

The Truth About Judicial Stereotypes

The Truth About Judicial Stereotypes

Why we should wish for a conservative justice even though we know that Obama will appoint one from the far, radical left.

Follow the link for more.

On Replacing Justice John Paul Stevens

It is of great importance that the Republican Party take a unified stance on the upcoming nominee.  While we can be certain that the nominee will be Liberal (as opposed to Conservative), it is incumbent on the Republican minority to ensure that the nominee is vetted thoroughly and, if more than center-left, rejected using all 41 of their votes.  President Obama must be reminded that he is not infallible and this time he will have to consider We the People, rather than leftist-socialist ideology, in the nomination.  If he doesn't understand that then his nominee must be rejected out of hand.

We must recognize that had the liberal-progressive-socialists of the Democrat Party listened to We the People during the debate on Obamacare the issues surrounding this nomination would be different.  They would still be vigorous, of course, but different and admittedly bi-partisan.  Obamacare's partisan passage and the preening of Obama, Reid and Pelosi in the aftermath completely changed that.  Now we can and must expect some hard, bare-knuckle fighting as we do not need another "Social Justice" bleeding heart liberal on the Court.  "Bi-partisan" has become a dirty word in the lexicon of We the People.

And if any Republican thinks he can be bi-partisan in the coming debate then he should begin looking for a new job.  We the People will treat him just like Bart Stupak or any of the other Democrat "Yeas" on Obamacare.  Our patience is way too thin for more political games.

McConnell Vows Senate GOP Will Make "Vigorous Case for Judicial Restraint"

A "vigorous case for judicial restraint" is not as strong a statement as We the People would like to hear but it is a start.

Follow the link for more.

FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to Retire

FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to Retire

Justice Stevens has had a distinguished career since being appointed by President Gerald Ford. He is considered a "liberal" justice thus the appointment by Obama will not change the balance of the court, however, considering the recent totalitarian actions of the Obama Regime it is incumbent on the Republican's in the Senate to vet any appointee very carefully and, if that appointee is as much of an ideologue as Obama, the appointee must be rejected. Unlike the last vote on Justice Sotomayor, who received the consent of the Senate with the Democrats holding a super-majority, with 41 votes the Republicans have that power and that responsibility.

This We the People must watch carefully.

Follow the link for more.

Posted using ShareThis