Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?
Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the U.S. military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyber warfare — computers — to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.
Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.
When the government restricts freedom of association based on an immutable characteristic of birth — like race, gender or the place of birth — it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.
Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?
This article is by Judge Andrew Napolitano. Do read it all.
I love these hitler parodies!
Eric Holder’s Contempt Didn’t Start Last Week…
Back on April 23rd, 2000 Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano had a few questions for (then Deputy) Attorney General Eric Holder. Here they are thanks to The Media Research Center :
Napolitano : Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy (Elian Gonzalez)?
Holder : Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.
Napolitano : You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.
Holder : We didn’t need an order.
Napolitano : Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?
Holder : [Silence]
Napolitano : The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge…Unprecedented in American history.
Holder : “He was not taken at the point of a gun.”
Napolitano : “We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun.”
It is a constant refrain on the left that conservatives are “selfish.” Those who want to work and keep the fruits of their own labor are castigated as self-centered and greedy, while progressives are held out to be all-compassionate and kind for supporting government-run programs for every malady under the sun.
Enough of that rubbish.
The term “selfish” in various contexts implies that someone wrongfully holds onto or gains something at the expense of another. While conservatives and most political moderates uses the term “selfish” to deride those who take things that do not belong to them — in other words, what that person did not produce or receive voluntarily from another — the modern left uses the term “selfish” to upbraid those who want to hold onto something of their own that is demanded by another.
The left therefore seems to assume that the life, labor, and property of any individual are the possession of “society.” This is a tribal, mystical, and frankly demeaning notion that is anything but concordant with civilized peoples.
If a person is born into the world and has the potential of leading his own life, which culminates in that person’s death and no other’s, then it is logical and moral to look at that living being as a totality.
In reality, a human being is not a cog in a machine, or a blob of protoplasm in a swamp of humanity, or whatever analogy reflects a part of a whole being subordinate to the whole. He is a sentient being, alive within the cosmos, and should be afforded every opportunity to direct his own inseverable experience, so long as he does not impinge on others’ right to do so.
It only follows, then, that choice and voluntarism should follow in every sphere of life and without artificial boundary. As in society, as in economy, as in politics, as in private life.
So in the course of a person supporting his own life, as capitalist economies allow the overwhelming majority of humanity to do, it is wrong for another legally and morally co-equal human being to extract life and labor from him. Coercive redistribution is a violation of the voluntary nature of the free economy; whether to work or to starve is a choice all people are capable of making. Reality is not coercive; it is instructive.
As the preconditions of voluntarism and choice vary in the economy, the definitions of “selfishness” tend to become altered in the language. In a free economy, people trade their labor at their own discretion. It thus becomes a moral affront akin to “selfishness” to take the fruit of another person’s labor, since one is free to work hard himself and is expected to trade value in kind.
Bill Whittle is an awesome commentarian/pundit. The latest Firewall is one of the clearest explanations of why health care can not and should not be a right. To distill his commentary down to a sentence : a right does not cost money to exercise, it is an expression of the human experience, but can be oppressed diminishing the human experience. Once you understand this, you realize Obama care infringes on the rights of health care providers.
Go and view the video HERE>
It’s nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt, a Republican effort to discredit the Attorney General just months before the 2012 election.
If you were watching the any of the main-stream media offerings yesterday, that’s the message you took away from their coverage of the Fast and Furious hearing.
Well, except Fox News who once again comes across as “fair and balanced”. That’s not to say, their bias didn’t show in their opinion segments later in the evening beginning with O’Reilly, but at least they attempt to separate news from opinion, unlike the other outlets.
Quick break: is it me or does the tune “Jesse’s Girl” automatically pop into your head whenever Tamara Holder appears on screen? Ok – back to the post…
Well, for once our liberal friends are correct, it is a witch-hunt. It is a Republican effort to discredit the Attorney General just months prior to the 2012 election. It is all of that because Eric Holder allowed it to become so.
For the last eighteen months he’s tried everything possible to not release the documents related to the botched gun running operation. Liberals argue he’s already given Congress the pertinent documents; however, just the fact that over a hundred thousand documents have not yet to be released leaves room for doubt.
Read more HERE.
The U.S. Attorney, for the District of Minnesota, is now looking into a permit denial for an Islamic Center. Last week, the Village of St. Anthony denied a group of Muslims a conditional use permit to open the Islamic Center and mosque. The City Council said the Islamic Center did not meet zoning requirements.
What possibly can go wrong here?
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.
The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.
The C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said. The Obama administration has said it is not providing arms to the rebels, but it has also acknowledged that Syria’s neighbors would do so.
The clandestine intelligence-gathering effort is the most detailed known instance of the limited American support for the military campaign against the Syrian government. It is also part of Washington’s attempt to increase the pressure on President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who has recently escalated his government’s deadly crackdown on civilians and the militias battling his rule. With Russia blocking more aggressive steps against the Assad government, the United States and its allies have instead turned to diplomacy and aiding allied efforts to arm the rebels to force Mr. Assad from power.
By helping to vet rebel groups, American intelligence operatives in Turkey hope to learn more about a growing, changing opposition network inside of Syria and to establish new ties. “C.I.A. officers are there and they are trying to make new sources and recruit people,” said one Arab intelligence official who is briefed regularly by American counterparts.
At Princess Pelosi’s weekly press conference this morning, she made the point several times that there was a huge difference between George W. Bush asserting Executive Privilege over the firing of US Attorneys and Obama using it yesterday. When asked what the differences were she deferred to Elijah Cummings on the issue. But then she took a moment to tell the press what this contempt vote was really about, to stop Holder from fighting voter suppression in this country:
Contempt of Congress? Contempt of Congress? To frivolously use that really important vehicle to undermine the person who’s assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country? I’m telling you this is connected. It is no accident. It is a decision and it is as clear as can be – not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name, to undermine his name, undermine his name as he goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Do go to the site HERE.
You also have the naacp, but whites can’t have their own organization!