Comment Last Three
October 29, 2010
Liberals are destroying our voting system and the meaning of being a US citizen. We want to preserve our voting system as secure and transparent. With illegals, dead people, multiply votes, felons, and early voting, the liberals and Democrats are forcing our voting system into that of a 3rd world country. Our voting system does not have integrity or is it secure so one person has one vote.
Democrats and liberals want to destroy our American voting system so they remain in power and cheat on every election. Look at several of the current Congressmen and Senators who are in Congress because of fraud and irregular voting by illegals, dead people, felons and other individuals who are not authorized to vote.
Arizona is trying to secure its borders and ensure voter integrity, but the federal government, Democrats, liberals, and the ACLU do not want a secure and correct voting system--they want to cheat and use fraud to throw elections.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has violated the Code of Conduct for United States judges. She should resign from her position as a roving judge on "senior status." If she doesn't resign, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. - at whose sole discretion she serves as a "pinch hitter" on lower federal courts - should no longer designate her for such duties.
In a controversial case Tuesday before a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Mrs. O'Connor provided the deciding vote in a 2-1 decision to throw out Arizona's requirement that new voter registrants provide proof of citizenship. This was not just another lousy decision in Justice O'Connor's long record of uneven jurisprudence. The deeper ethical problem is that she is active in political causes while continuing to serve as a judge.
This week, the retired justice was exposed for having recorded political robo-calls pushing a constitutional amendment in Nevada for state judges to be appointed by governors rather than elected by citizens. She claims she never gave permission for her recording to be used for robo-calls, but she recorded not just a voice message but also a video for a political group dedicated solely to passing this amendment - a group she leads as "honorary chairwoman."
Mrs. O'Connor likewise has made appearances in Missouri and Iowa weighing in on those states' judicial-selection processes and has written a New York Times column in support of specific legislation to provide greater funding for Alzheimer's research. The latter might be a worthy goal, but her advocacy for it amounts to direct participation in inherently political activity.
As explained on National Review Online by Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Code of Conduct specifically states that "a judge should refrain from political activity. A judge should not act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization; make speeches for a political organization. ..." Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman Law School and co-author of a widely used text on judicial ethics, told The Washington Times, "This is not a subtle point. First, she has stepped into a political battle, and secondly, she is leveraging her title as a judge. She is not supposed to step into a political thicket."
Justice O'Connor is openly involved in political activity, and her recordings have even been used for political purposes by operatives of endangered Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Such politicking in inappropriate for an active judge and mustn't be tolerated.
Our judicial system is out of whack with so many rulings from liberal judges. Look at the recent ruling on "gays in the military" where one liberal judge wants to force her opinion on the Congress and the American people and our military.
We have had enough of the liberal judges and the ACLU.
October 13, 2010
Again, an activist federal judge tries to dictate law and alter our Christian and social values. That is why we do not need liberal or progressive judges on the bench. These judges rule against the American people, even when they vote on issues (like CA’s vote on cutting taxes or not funding programs for illegals). Now a federal judge in California has ordered the U.S. military to stop enforcing the 17-year-old policy banning openly gay service members, the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Judge Virginia Phillips issued a permanent injunction against "don't ask, don't tell" from her court in Riverside, Calif., declaring that the policy "infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members." This is none of her business since it is a policy decision by the military services and the US Congress. Which President appointed her—was it a Democrat?
Her injunction applies to U.S. military personnel serving throughout the world. She also ordered the federal government and military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding that may have been commenced under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Act."
The judge ruled the policy unconstitutional in a Sept. 9 decision, but delayed issuing the injunction for a month in order to give the Obama administration's Justice Department an opportunity to respond. Congress and the Department of Justice need to challenge her ruling since she does not have this authority. However, knowing the Obama administration, I doubt they will get involved. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Tuesday the decision was under review. The department has 60 days to file an appeal.
No longer will our military be compelled to discharge service members with valuable skills and experience because of an archaic policy mandating irrational discrimination," said Christian Berle, deputy executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. Supporters of "don't ask, don't tell" denounced the ruling as a blatant example of judicial activism undercutting the democratic process. The Senate last month debated legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" — already approved by the House of Representatives — as an amendment to a defense-authorization bill, but proponents could not overcome a filibuster.
"Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda, disregarding the views of all four military service chiefs and the constitutional role of Congress," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "This move will only further the desire of voters to change Congress."
We must vote out the Democrats from Congress and the White House. They are destroying America with liberal judges.
April 07, 2010
Why is Los Angeles broke? Why do liberals destroy cities and waste their tax revenues on programs that are not part of a governmental function?
As of May 10 the city of Los Angeles will no longer be able to meet its payroll. As of June 30, every dime in the reserves will be gone. Los Angeles is dead broke. "With the city facing the possibility of running out of money by next month, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today called on the city to shut down non-revenue-generating services -- such as parks, street-sweeping and libraries -- for two days a week. These are the government services that should be provided--not health clinics for illegals.
The Mayor said that the police and fire departments would not be affected by the closures, which he said would take effect Monday." This is because the DWP would not give $73 million to prop up the city budget--they wanted a 24% rate increase in exchange. For years tax payers have had their rates jacked up in order to cover the out of control spending of the city of Los Angeles.
The city of Los Angeles is going to have a fiscal collapse. What will be interesting to see is if the people of LA even care of government is closed 40% of the time--will it be missed?
What influence has illegal immigration had on the city finances? LA wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on illegal immigrants due to their open-door policy. Also, the unions' demands are out of control and since they support these liberal Democrats, they get rewarded with retirement plans and other perks paid for by the tax payers.
We have the same issue in Maryland and Montgomery County where elected liberal politicians waste tax payer funds on illegals, more social welfare policies, and programs that have nothing to do with good government services. Our liberal elected officials are not fiscally responsible and they do not look at real cut backs that would balance their budget.
People across the US are mad and are tired of these liberal politicians wasting their money on programs that support illegals, unions or bad policies.
December 16, 2009
Liberal Democrats are trying once again to give illegal aliens our American rights, just like the captured terrorists in our prison in Cuba. What is wrong with these liberal elected officials? Don't they understand our history, our rights under the Constitution, and our laws? We must fight these elected officials and stand up for our rights so they do not GIVE our rights to people who are not supposed to be in our country and cost us billions of dollars.
House Democrats Massive Amnesty Bill
Certain to Encounter Fierce Public Opposition, Predicts FAIR
December 15, 2009
(Washington, D.C) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) described the introduction of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP) as wholesale sell-out of the interests of the American people. The bill being introduced today by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and over 90 Democrats is certain to meet fierce public opposition.
CIR ASAP would grant amnesty to virtually every illegal alien in the United States and vastly increase future flows of low-skilled, low-wage immigrants. The legislation focuses exclusively on satisfying the demands of illegal aliens, ethnic interest groups and cheap labor employers, while offering nothing that serves the interests of law-abiding Americans.
"At a time when some 25 million Americans are either unemployed or relegated to part-time work, the last thing the Democratic majority ought to be focused on is a massive amnesty and immigration expansion bill," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Legalizing millions of low-skill, low-wage workers who would depend heavily on government services is simply bad immigration policy at any point in time. When the federal government is running a $1.4 trillion deficit, and numerous state and local governments are facing fiscal crises, it represents the epitome of irresponsibility."
In addition to granting amnesty to millions of immigration lawbreakers for the bargain basement price of $500, CIR ASAP would:
·Weaken immigration enforcement at the borders and in the interior of the country.
·Vastly expand the ability of illegal aliens to fight their removal from the U.S. (in many cases with U.S. taxpayers footing the bill).
·Preempt state laws that assist in immigration enforcement.
·Dramatically increase both employment-based and family-based immigration.
·Eliminate federal/local enforcement cooperation agreements.
"CIR ASAP offers nothing to law-abiding Americans, except more competition for scare jobs, higher taxes, and more government deficits," Stein said. "While American families are feeling the pain of this deep and protracted recession, Rep. Gutierrez, with the backing of the Democratic leadership and the White House, seems to be focused on political payoffs for a narrow group of amnesty obsessed constituencies.
"If congressional leaders were surprised by the intensity of public opposition to amnesty legislation in 2007, when unemployment hovered around 4.6 percent, they had better brace themselves for an even stronger reaction in 2010. CIR ASAP amounts to a fire sale on American citizenship and American jobs and the public will make its voice heard loudly again in 2010," predicted Stein.
November 29, 2009
Once again, the citizens of the United States witness a liberal President who uses the military as a back-drop just for political purposes. We have witnessed this over our history from the Vietnam war to Bill Clinton's nation building to today's fight against radical Muslims. Today, liberals are using Multiculturalism to target our military history.
Recent examples are the President not being able to make a decision on the war in Afghanistan, the terrorists at Gitmo being tried in a civilian court, and Navy selas who will be tried for the capture and rough treatment of a killer, Mr. Ahmed Abed.
The President will use the military as a back-drop at West Point to attempt to persuade the American public this week that more time, troops and money will be required for a corrupt government. However, he will not allow the military to take the "golves off" and use all necessary methods to kill the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. How can the US shut down the poppy growing and drug distribution, while at the same time stop government graft?
"The significance of the Afghanistan decision cannot be understated," said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who assisted Gen. David H. Petraeus with strategic planning for the U.S. war effort in Iraq and now teaches military history at Ohio State University. "The president's decision, coming after so many weeks of study and commentary, will set the strategic direction of the conflict in Afghanistan," Mr. Mansoor said.
The strategic direction of the eight-year conflict has been the focus of an intensive internal debate at the White House that began over the summer and has since consumed ninelengthy meetings in the Situation Room. There, Mr. Obama has allowed his top generals, his senior foreign-policy advisers, his national-security team and his political aides to debate whether the country should invest more resources in the hopes of bringing security and stability to a lawless place, or whether the military should begin a drawdown that would leave a more limited and surgical force in place to suppress al Qaeda.
The nation's top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, presented the president and his team with a range of options that included troop commitments reported to have ranged from 10,000 to 40,000 on top of the 68,000 already there. But resource commitments were only part of the equation. There was the larger question of what the U.S. wanted to accomplish in Afghanistan, and whether those goals are essential to American security, or even achievable.
Nathaniel C. Fick, a Marine veteran who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the president appears to be prepared to endorse Gen. McChrystal's plan for a broad counterinsurgency strategy aimed at stabilizing populated areas in Afghanistan, and eventually training a home-grown force to maintain that security. That effort is likely to take 30,000 to 35,000 additional American troops, and a further 5,000 troops from NATO allies.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirmed Wednesday that several NATO countries will send the additional 5,000 troops. NATO is not doing its job and many European countries are not living up to their NATO functions and obligations.
A recent Washington Post poll found that 52 percent of Americans see the war in Afghanistan as not worth its costs - only 45 percent approve of how he is dealing with it, while 48 percent disapprove. That support is even worse, at 39 percent, among independents, a key constituency for the White House.
Either the US must use all methods to defeat the terrorists, or just pull out and let the country go back to being a terrorist camp. The choice is very clear.