Razing Arizona

Arizona is defending against a multi-front in the Obama’s attempt to punish and destroy the rebellious state.  Arizonans have the nerve to want to defend the border, and enforce the laws of the United States.  The Justice department sues Arizona,  before Judge Susan R. Bolton, at the ninth District Court. The only problem is constitutionally the court has no jurisdiction in the case.

“Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.”

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely NO Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a State.

Neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The current Supreme Court  is more rational by a tenuous five to four majority. Holder needed to buy some time and put an end to the Arizona impudence.  Holders attack is double pronged and on the other front is a suit against the popular  Sheriff Joe Arpaio, inspite of the fact that an ICE investigation just a year ago proclaimed the Maricopa County, “in its handling of illegal immigrants, acted in a professional manner and complied with a memorandum of agreement (MOA) under which the government gave them the authority to enforce federal law. That agreement included a ban on racial profiling.” The evidence is of course that this is more about politics than it is about concern of civil liberty’s

What happens now? It’s been nearly a year and a half since the investigation began, and the Justice Department has not charged the sheriff’s office with violating anyone’s civil rights. Instead, Thursday’s lawsuit goes after Arpaio for allegedly failing to cooperate fully in the probe.

“It’s a totally political lawsuit,” says Bob Driscoll, a former Bush Justice Department Civil Rights Division official who is representing Arpaio. “They want to find evidence of discrimination, but all they’re finding is evidence of law enforcement that includes immigration enforcement.” (The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.)

Failing to find proof of real discrimination in Maricopa County could ultimately doom the administration’s entire crusade in Arizona. The much-publicized suit against the new immigration law is based on the possibility that it might result in future discrimination, but at the same time the department is struggling to find evidence of civil rights violations in Arpaio’s office, which uses enforcement techniques similar to those outlined in the new law. There’s a real chance that in the end Obama’s war on Arizona will come to nothing.

Hopefully it will backfire, but this administration isn’t rational and seems to be in a blind rage into war against Arizona. They just don’t care if their attacks are rational or worthwhile.  They do know they have more money and Lawyers than Sheriff Apraio and the whole state of Arizona, and maybe they can destroy the state Maricopa County Financially.


Much ado about Nothing

I have not posted much about Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally, mostly because there isn’t much to add. Beck hosts a big shindig 300 thousand people show up, nothing particualrly interesting was said, even the people were mostly just everyday normal Americans. The subject of the the day was about bring more God to Americans and honoring our war heroes. All pretty noble, but it was all preaching to the choir.  More inspiring speaches might be found on any church on any Sunday.  I don’t mean any of this to be demeaning,  It was good fun had by all, and it to many folks it was a way to stand up and be counted. I  just don’t see where the event made a big political statement or any controversy, and it wasn’t supposed to be.

Yet, it seems that a lot of people were just looking for reasons to take offence.   I suppose  that a bunch of middle class, predominantly white people with Tea Party tendencies might be intimadating to to the elitist class. At the Huffington post there is a photo essay on the most ridiculous messages.

The first is a t-shirt emblazoned with “Got Tea”, a big button emblazoned with “Obama’s worst nightmare, an “Educated” Voter”

The left doesn’t understand where these folks are coming from, so the simplest of messages and statements is frightening to them.


Surrender or Victory?

Most of our troops have been pulled out, and Iraq is still in shambles with no government, a crumbling infrastructure, and extremist still blowing people up. As he declares victory. One has to wonder what the future holds for the Iraqi people. I hope Obama is right but it seems like we could have waited a little longer until the nation stabilized.  Obama like the leftist he is has a lot of confidence in the bureaucracy of government. We will have we have diplomats, aide workers and advisors on the ground, Diplomats and advisors just talk they don’t do much to actually help stop people from from blowing up other people. Time will tell, I hope I’m not being overly pessimistic.  He then oddly turns the speech into a discussion of the economy asks the American people to rally toward the miserable economy he has given us.

When it came to the economy, Obama had nothing new to offer. So instead, he provided America with a pep talk, exhorting us to “honor” our troops by “coming together” with a great sense of urgency to “restore our economy.”

Presumably, this means rallying around Obama’s unpopular domestic agenda. In any case, Americans are unlikely to be impressed by a president whose answer to our economic woes sounds something like “hug a soldier and hope that some of his grit rubs off.”


But, Would We Vote for Her?

I like Sarah Palin, She makes a good spokesperson and representative for the Conservatives and the Tea Party movement. Greg has a point though:

I’ll admit that two years ago I believed her to be a good pick for VP. What’s more, I still think that the choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain was an acceptable one. That said, I am definitely in the majority on this poll result.

Almost three out of five Americans believe former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) would not be an effective president, a new poll found Monday.

59 percent of U.S. adults said they don’t think Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate and potential 2012 candidate, would be an effective president of the United States.

26 percent of adults, by contrast, said they believe Palin would be effective, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll conducted earlier this August.

Why don’t I think she would be an effective president? Because of everything that has happened in the two years since her selection as the nominee.

The real question that bears asking though is, “Would you vote for her if she were running against the current President?”

Guns News Politics

Obama signs Pro Gun Bill Ron Paul Voted Against.

They say politics makes strange bed fellows.  Hot off the NRA press.

Friday, August 27, 2010 Last week, the NRA-backed “Firearms Excise Tax Improvement Act of 2010” (H.R. 5552) was signed into law.
H.R. 5552 — originally introduced in January 2009 as H.R. 510 by Congressmen Ron Kind (D-WI) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) — passed the U.S. House in late June by an unprecedented margin of 412-6. Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Sam Farr (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) were the only Members of Congress to vote against the common-sense measure.
The Senate version of the bill — S. 632 — was co-sponsored by Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID).
By unanimous consent, the Senate passed H.R. 5552 on August 5th. It was signed into law on August 16th, and became Public Law 111-237.
The legislation will allow firearm and ammunition manufacturers to pay federal excise tax on a quarterly basis, just as other industries do. In the past, firearm and ammunition manufacturers were unfairly mandated to pay their federal excise taxes biweekly while all other manufacturers paid their taxes quarterly. Obviously, this requirement created an undue burden on the industry. In addition to being equitable, the change to a quarterly excise tax payment schedule will allow firearm and ammunition manufacturers to reinvest funds into researching and developing new products, purchasing new manufacturing machinery and creating jobs without establishing a new tax, adding to the burgeoning federal deficit, or using any bailout money.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation will create a net revenue increase of $4 million over 10 years. Accordingly, the measure will increase funding for wildlife conservation through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, established by enactment of federal legislation in 1937, authorizes the development of wildlife restoration projects across the country. This legislation will neither raise taxes nor exempt firearm and ammunition manufacturers from paying federal excise taxes into the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.

President Obama signs this into law, Every Senator signed on to it, Only 6 reps voted against it, John Conyers (D-MI), Sam Farr (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Maxine Waters (D-CA).  Really strange that Ron Paul would vote against this. Rep. Paul is has claimed he is against oppressive taxes.  The fact that the excise taxes had to be reported and paid Bi weekly, made these particular taxes oppressive and punitive.  In fact reducing the reporting time to quarterly saves the government $4M over the bi weekly reporting.  What is with Ron Paul? Is he supporting punitive taxation policies or has he turned anti gun? Maybe he is just losing it and doesn’t really know what he is voting on.  John Cotton notes:

I understand that principles are vital to the American way of life and I also realize that those principles have been observed primarily in the breach for a very long time. However, this latest vote by Congressman Paul shows the danger of having a Congressman driven purely on principle while ignoring present day suffering. One need not abandon the former to address the latter. In this case, that suffering involves “only” paperwork and money, but often the stakes are much higher. Recall that Congressman Paul also voted against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shields firearms manufacturers and firearms dealers from frivolous, politically-motivated lawsuits. So the only two recent bills aiding the firearms industry were opposed by Congressman Paul; a man hailed by many as a “true pro-gun Congressman.”

I don’t want my Representative to have his head stuck in the clouds; I want his butt down in the trenches fighting with the rest of us.

You got some `splaining to do Ron.

Guns News Politics

NRA Rejects Harry Reid

The NRA Yesterday announced that they weren’t going to endorse Harry Reid. Pretty big news.

In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here. The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote. The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada. NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit for more information as Election Day draws near.

The NRA has a sometimes annoying policy of of supporting incumbents over the  challengers if the incumbent is reasonably supportive of the NRA agenda.  Harry Reid has been mostly supportive, and bills such as the National Parks carry couldn’t have happened without his support.  If Republicans do not win the Senate, we could likely get a a Senate Majority Leader who is a lot less gun friendly than Harry Reid. The decision for the NRA was difficult. Sharon Angle doesn’t have much of a record on second amendment issues, and she hasn’t said much about it. NRA director Charles Cotton blogged about the issue and the tough decision.

The media are abuzz about the NRA’s presumed endorsement of Nevada Senator Harry Reid.  However, the NRA has not endorsed Harry Reid.  Most of the time people who support the Second Amendment also support conservative values, so it’s relatively rare that we have a voting dilemma in supporting pro-gun candidates. This is precisely why the majority of pro-gun elected officials are Republicans and why most newly elected Democrats in Congress are considered “blue-dog” pro-gun Democrats.  Hopefully, this will change and we will see more Democrats supporting the Second Amendment.  I’d love to see the day when gun rights are absolutely safe regardless who is in power in Washington or Austin, so we can fight over abortion, taxes, school vouchers, immigration, prayer in school, and numerous other issues that will surely divide us. Unless we make guns a do-or-die issue above everything else, that day will never come. Politicians and Party leaders need to know that, no matter how divided we may be on other issues, we will come together to defend the Second Amendment and that we will vote “guns” above anything else.

The NRA has a “friendly noncombatant” policy that is crucial to its success. No offense intended, but anyone who thinks this policy is not absolutely necessary simply does not know how politics works in the real world.   As soon as an organization abandons someone who supports its programs, legislation and goals, that organization has lost power in Washington (or Austin). Reliability is just as important in politics as in combat.  If an elected official who votes as you want them to vote (even against his Party’s position) can’t depend upon your support during tough times as well as the good times, then you have lost influence not only with that politician, but with all elected officials.  Betrayal is a message that travels quickly through the halls of congress and its impact is both lasting and devastating.

Harry Reids major sin was in his support and vote for Kagan, and Sotomayor as Supreme Court justices.  This was an uncomfortable choice for the NRA. If the Republicans don’t take the Senate or the House, and Reid loses our RKBA advocacy will take a big hit.

No Lawyers only Guns and money suggest that they know what they are doing.

Given that the NRA’s Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre are about as Washington Insider as it comes, the non-endorsement of Reid is recognition of two things. First, that the membership would rise up in protest if Harry Reid were endorsed. Second is the recognition that the tide against the status quo is so strong that most who get in its way will get wiped out. Just ask Republican incumbents like Robert Bennett, Bob Inglis of South Carolina, and quite probably, Lisa Murkowski.

Charlie Cook of the Cook Report is one of the best political handicappers in Washington. He has called this election a “wave election” akin to the 1994 Republican landslide. I think he is quite accurate in his description of it. When one looks at the number of political outsiders who have taken on the establishment and won by fighting a guerrilla war, it is astounding – and that is just in the primaries to date. The NRA is not an agile organization but it is smart enough to recognize reality when it is staring it in the face. Harry Reid is in trouble and they don’t want to go down with the ship.

News Politics

Harris County Fire Burns Up Voting Machines.

Ten Thousand machines up in smoke,  Don’t know wow they are going to get through this one,  

When I became the precinct chair and election judge in my precinct in 2002, I had the privilege of helping voters get used to the new eSlate machines that Harris County had acquired.

Well, I wonder what we’ll be using this election.

While everybody is speculating about the hows and whys of the fire, I don’t really care about them. My one and only question is what I, my alternate judge, and my clerks are going to be expected to do in November, and what sort of equipment we will have in the precinct.

Why cant they just use pencil and paper? It has worked well for hundreds years.

Anyone have any extra voting machines to lend Harris County?


The Censored Ad

Anti Perry Ad

The Texas governors race is shaping up to be a real down in the mud race, which is how Texas political races usually are. The Bill White camp has thrown out the first dirt ball.   Well not exactly Bill Whites official camp.  Its from a PAC known as ‘Back to Basics’  Financed by trial lawyers, the TV advertising, ambulance chasing Steven Mostyn in particular.

This first came to my attention this morning through Mean Rachel’s blog. According to her, the Back to Basics PAC will be running the ad in Texas newspapers on Tuesday.

Back to Basics is heavily funded by Houston trial attorney Steven Mostyn. We won’t know the full extent of the committee’s funding until the next reporting period, 30 days before the election.

It really strikes me  as weird that this trial lawyer has the nerve to call out anyone as a coward. This is a guy who is afraid to show his own face in his own commercials. The other strange thing is that The Chronicle is the only paper that refused to run the ad. This, after all, is the the Houston Chronicle and the Chronicle is Mostyn’s home news paper and Bill White is the Chronicle’s candidate.

In 24 newspapers around the state, a full-page ad ran today with a picture of Gov. Rick Perry and the word “coward” in large, capital letters. Back to Basics PAC, the anti-Perry group behind the ad, was hoping that number would be 25.

The  Houston Chronicle (which happens to be hometown paper of Back to Basics’ main funder, trial lawyer Steve Mostyn) opted not to run the ad, and it turns out it was the only one. The ad passed muster at every other paper the political action committee approached, including the state’s other major dailies.

These negative ads come out just after the latest Rassmussen poll which shows that White has some ground to gain.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey published today finds that neither major party candidate in Texas’ gubernatorial race gains any ground. According to the poll Republican Rick Perry picks up 49% of the vote, while Democrat Bill White receives 41%.

Coincidence ?

Guns Politics

Gunowners Against Illegal Mayors

I’m not sure what a gun has to do to become illegal?  Perhaps the same way many aliens become illegal.? Bloomberg’s gang of crooks Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has spawned Stop Illegal Mayors . These unabashed self-righteous gun grabbers have been up to no good.

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors represents Americans united to fight the Bloomberg Gang, a band of organized criminal politicians. Originating in New York City, the Gang has recruited criminal mayors across the United States.

Some of the Gang’s  members have been convicted of  assaulting officers and constituents, corruption, extortion, theft, obstruction of justice, bribery, perjury,  tax evasion, child porn, battery, and child molestation. They have attacked constituents and police officers, destroyed houses with sledge hammers, and even stolen gift cards donated for the poor. No crime is beneath them and no enormity beyond them.

Check the website out for the rapsheets.


Do ya miss me yet?

There has been a call from liberal commentators for George W. to come and speak out about the Ground Zero Mosque, after all he made it clear our war was against Extemist muslim terrorist and not against peaceloving Muslims.

How badly did Barack Obama fumble the mosque controversy last weekend?  No fewer than three media columnists now want Obama rescued by George W. Bush.  Byron York reports on the desperate pleas:

“It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

For the moment, with Obama failing to live up to expectations, Bush-bashing is over.

What the left might be missing most of all was W’s civility. Few ever doubted his love and respect for the American people.

It’s certainly a delicious irony to savor. Of course all of those pundits clamoring for Bush’s assistance are careful to point out that he is still an idiotchimp on every other issue but this one, but I have heard similar “I miss Bush” musings from others–those who always hated Bush, those who grew to hate him, those who piled on because the pile was a safe place to be.

One of my husband’s friends–hated Bush, loved Obama and defended him vociferously for the first year, less passionately the second–told him over lunch this week that he’s done with Obama and “I never thought I’d say this but I miss Bush. We knew that he said what he meant, even if we didn’t want to hear it. We knew who he was, even if we didn’t like him. And we never had to wonder whether he liked us. He always did.”

And that is it, in a nutshell. Bush is missable, because we miss having a president whose affection for his country and its people–even the ones who hated him–was never in doubt.