O’Malley NOT Fit To Be President
Jun 15, 2015 2016 Election, Political
Can we all agree that the reason to vote for someone to be president is NOT because they are black (the first or otherwise), they are a woman or they are a midget or Muslim or any other physical characteristic? Can we all just agree that these characteristics do not make a person a leader or worthy of the position of president? Some people voted for Obama solely because he is black and he has been a disaster. Hillary wants your vote because she is a woman. Those are not traits that one should base voting on. They are things people cannot even control.
Martin O’Malley of Maryland wants to be the president. He wants to be that so he can dictate to you how to live your life. An article in the Washington Post says O’Malley is little known and not the front runner but that he would win a swimsuit contest.
The article shows O’Malley, who is in good physical shape, coming out of the Chesapeake Bay in the middle of the winter after he participated in the Polar Bear Plunge. He is in a long pair of what might be swim trunks.
Oh my, he looks dreamy so vote for him. He is such a stud and will give the half-naked Putin a run for his money in the bare chested beefcake leader department. The article is clever in that it leads people to think the WAPO wants you to forget him as a candidate and think about how great he looks. The reality is the WAPO loves him and wants your mind to think of how wonderful it would be to have this dreamy dude in the White House.
Give me a break. Being fit is not a quality that one should use to decide on the leader of this nation. O’Malley is in great shape but he violates his oath of office, violates the Constitution (of the US and of Maryland) and he is a nanny state progressive who thinks government is your mommy and daddy. Physically fit or not he is not fit to lead this nation.
[note]Sarah Palin is in great shape and the left skewered her as some kind of Bimbo. In other words, the fact that she was (and is) in great shape was not touted by the WAPO as a plus for her in the election nor should it have been.[/note]
The people of Maryland have suffered under the rule of liberal Democrats for decades. The state has high taxes, onerous laws (Maryland law allows them to tax the RAIN), and is a huge violator of our Second Amendment right. Martin O’Malley was very instrumental in all of these things. He raised taxes scores of times so he could spend the money on things government should not be involved in as part of the progressive agenda and in an effort to support illegal things (like providing for people who are in the country illegally). O’Malley and his progressive allies passed restrictive gun laws that added even more burden. Maryland had tough (unconstitutional) gun laws and O’Malley made them worse.
There are not enough negative words in the English language to describe O’Malley. He is a slug who wants to be the dictator he was in Maryland on a national level.
Reject him (and all progressives) or you will regret it (unless you are one of the slugs living off the taxpayer).
I would prefer competent leaders who follow the Constitution and I don’t care what kind of shape they are in, what sex they are, what color, religion or heritage they are or if they use tobacco products.
As long as the person is able to lead and do so following the Constitution then I am interested in taking a closer look.
Oh, and I don’t care what party the person belongs to (though I can’t imagine finding a Democrat to fit the bill)…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: beefcake, liar, nanny state, O'Malley, progressive, puke, slug, unqualified
I Don’t Have To Wait On Sotomayor
May 26, 2009 Political
After years of having Bush judicial nominees hammered by Democrats in the Senate as soon as they were nominated the Republicans decided they would wait to pass judgment on Obama’s first judicial nominee. They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.
I don’t have to wait because, despite Obama’s claims about her qualifications (which seem to be only her ethnicity and her sex) I have already determined she is not qualified based upon several things.
First she is an activist judge and she is a racist. Obama did say he wanted someone who would empathize with those before the court. Empathy is an emotion and the courts are supposed to base decisions on the law and not emotions. Sotomayor is on record as saying that the court is where policy is made. This is absolutely untrue in our system. I am not saying it does not happen but her acceptance of that premise disqualifies her.
That statement is not the only place she disclosed that life experiences dictate rulings. Sotomayor stated; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” New York Times
In one fell swoop she managed to show that her rulings are guided by life experiences (empathy or sympathy depending on the circumstances) and that she is a racist. Her comment about white males is out of line. Imagine if Justice Alito had stated; “I would hope that a wise white man with good family values and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latino woman who has not lived that life.” (Sotomayor was also involved in a case where whites filed a discrimination suit. She was not in favor of their rights)
The liberals would go nuts. Ted Kennedy would have stroked out with his “concern” for women. Alito would have been labeled a misogynist pig and Borked out of contention. But I am willing to bet this issue will be left untouched by Republican Senators and if they address it the left will attack. Remember, you can only be a racist or sexist if you are a Democrat. One only needs to see how Kennedy or Clinton were treated compared to Justice Thomas. A murderer and an adulterer were defended and a man who had unfounded allegations thrown at him was slammed.
It is obvious that Sotomayor is fuzzy on how the judicial system works and though she claims to be in favor of staying in line with the Constitution she is either lying or does not understand the document. It is obvious from her statements of making policy and life experiences that she is an activist but the icing on the cake for me is her position on the Second Amendment.
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right and believes it only applies to the federal government so the states can do what they want which would make it different than any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and runs contrary to the equal protection clause. I know there are many anti gun zealots out there who believe the same thing but the reality is that gun ownership is an individual right and the right existed before the Constitution and before we were a country. The Second does not say the government gives the right, it states that THE RIGHT (meaning it already exists).
How is it that the Bill of Rights is a list of INDIVIDUAL rights but the Second Amendment is not one? How can that be? How is it that the Founders are on record as stating that gun ownership is an individual right but our activist judicial system has ignored that? A list of Founder’s quotes on the Second Amendment is here. Here is a sample:
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution [emphasis mine]
The quotation states the people which is the phrase that means all of us and private arms. This means the people and the arms do not have to be part of the militia especially when the first part discusses raising military forces to pervert power and injure fellow citizens (not members of the militia). The words of the Founders echo this sentiment. The Bill of Rights contain individual (civil) rights. To say the Second is not an individual right like the rest perverts the Constitution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of it.
I know that the argument has been made that the issue is settled law and gun control advocates point to the Miller decision. This is what was decided:
In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller’s argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:
“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).
Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was “comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“ (emphasis added) (ibid).
Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of “civilians primarily,” which is contrary to gun-control activist’s views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves,” which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted. Lythosants
People claim that this is the only definitive adjudication of the Second Amendment (until Heller) but that is not true. If one looks at the Dred Scott decision then one can see the court acknowledged that carrying a weapon was an individual right. The merits of the case and whether they got it right is a subject for another time. The important thing here is this argument against granting Scott’s petition:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
~snip~
The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.
A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. [emphasis mine] Cornell Law
This is case law and it is an opinion by the Supreme Court. It clearly states that firearm possession is an individual right and this is affirmed by discussing a negro (not a militia member) would be allowed to keep and carry a firearm. Dred Scott is not brought up in the gun debate as anti gun forces work very hard to deny us our basic right. The same people who will fight to the death to protect a “right” that is NOT in the Constitution (abortion) will fight just as hard to deny one that IS in there and is clearly defined.
Sonia Sotomayor is not fit to serve in the Supreme Court. She rules by empathy rather than the rule of law, is a racist and lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
Maybe she sat in on one of Obama’s lectures. I hear he was a Constitutional law professor.
The Republicans in the Senate need to do their homework and come prepared to batter her on the Second Amendment. She needs to be beaten as hard and as badly as Alito and Roberts were with the issue of abortion. She needs to be hammered on her racist views just as Sam Alito was for his membership in the Concerned Alumni at Princeton (CAP). Kennedy portrayed Alito as a racist for belonging to that group. The Republicans need to hammer on Sotomayor for her racist views as well. If any Democrat objects, take him out back and shoot him (a tongue in cheek remark clarified for the benefit of Meathead).
Drudge has a headline asking if Republicans can vote against a Latino nominee. Why not? They are not voting on Miss Latin America or for an ethnic issue, they are voting to put someone on the highest court in the land. What they are is of no consequence; what they believe and how they administer the law is.
Besides, it is not like the Republicans are going to get much of the Hispanic vote. That demographic is captured by the promise of Democrats to give away other people’s money and to give them amnesty. They will vote for the party that gives away what is not theirs and enslaves people in the name of diversity and the common good.
So hammer Sotomayor because it won’t make one bit of difference with regard to election day.
Besides, it is better to lose an election doing what is right than to win one while selling out the country.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activist judge, alito, constitution, democrat, law, Obama, policy, republican, roberts, Second Amendment, sotomayor, unqualified
Change I Don’t Believe
Jan 15, 2009 Political
Barack Obama ran his entire campaign on the theme of hope and change. He told us it was change we could believe in. He is not in office yet and already I see change but it is not change I can believe in, it is change I just can’t believe. However, he did tell people he was going to change things but he failed to mention if that change would be good or bad. Here is some change that I don’t think will be good:
- A nominee for Secretary of State that is extremely conflicted. Her husband is a former president and he receives money from around the world. How effective will she be working to do her job and keeping her husband’s money train running?
- A nominee for Director of the CIA who has absolutely no background in the intelligence field. In these perilous times, is that the kind of change we need?
- The governor of his home state tried to sell his vacated Senate seat. The Senate now has a person that the Democrats and Obama did not want.
- Hillary’s soon to be vacated seat is being pursued by Caroline Kennedy, who Obama supports. She has never held a job much less public office. Her claim to fame is her name, her money, and the fact that her father was a president who was assassinated.
- His choice for Homeland Security has not even been able to get an emergency plan for her state squared away. How will she take care of an entire country?
- His choice for Commerce Secretary had to withdraw to fight corruption charges.
- His choice for Treasury Secretary did not pay his taxes even though he received money to do so and signed papers saying he would. This was explained as an oversight and blamed on a lack of knowledge. Is this the kind of person we want watching over our treasury?
- He is proposing the largest spending package in our history claiming it will help fix the economy. If spending was the cure for the economy it would not be in bad shape because George Bush did nothing but spend for the last eight years.
- He has broken promise after promise. He is realizing that it is easy to say it on the campaign trail but actually doing it, once in office, is very difficult.
While Obama has been lauded for some of his other picks it is safe to say that he has filled his administration with Clinton retreads and he has put people of questionable integrity or who are completely unqualified in important positions. I imagine the MSM and Obama toadies will not criticize him the way they did President Bush when he put unqualified people in charge. Good job Brownie. Where are the trolls who infest this place criticizing Bush for things like this? Probably in the Kool Aid line.
I should not be surprised that Obama has selected unqualified people for positions. He is not qualified for the position he will soon hold. He has never been in charge of anything and his claim to fame is being a rabble rouser. He spent little time at the national level before he launched into his run for the presidency. The only good thing is that once he is done as president there will be nowhere else for him in government. He can fly around with Bill Clinton with his hand out.
This line up is a disaster waiting to happen and the ones who will suffer are the American people.
When the next 9/11 happens these people will make the Keystone Cops look like the Special Forces.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: change, corruption, hope, Obama, stimulus, unqualified