By a vote of 5-3 the United States Supreme Court handed Arizona a victory in her fight against illegal immigration. While this was not a decision on THE controversial immigration law which would let Arizona enforce federal immigration law by allowing the police to ask for a suspected illegal alien’s proof of citizenship it is a victory nonetheless.
In addition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law, which will make its way to the Supreme Court eventually, the state also passed a law which would REQUIRE a company to verify a perspective employee’s citizenship before that person could be hired. Today the Supreme Court ruled that this law was constitutional as the individual states have the right to ensure that businesses do not hire illegal aliens.
This is a blow to the Obama regime and to the justice department as they were both opposed to this law and sought to fight it in court. The Obama regime’s opposition to this law is interesting because liberals like to shift the blame from the illegal aliens to the companies which hire them for the influx of illegal aliens into this country. Democrats like to claim that if businesses were not willing to hire illegal aliens for the cheap labor that illegals would not be enticed into breaking into the United States and yet when a state moved to curb the illegal hiring of aliens the Obama regime challenged it in court.
While this is a victory for Arizona and the American people the fight is not over for the Supreme Court will still hear arguments on Arizona’s more controversial immigration law and I feel as if Arizona is destined to lose that fight as Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate immigration.
But Arizona’s controversial immigration law does not go above and beyond federal law, in fact it mirrors federal law, so the question will be asked of the federal government; if you are not willing to enforce the laws on the books should not the states be allowed to enforce the laws you are unwilling to enforce?
Stay tuned…..
The Senate is now debating the merits of extending the PATRIOT Act and Harry Reid has gone on the offensive defending the continuation of the PATRIOT Act by berating Rand Paul’s opposition to the legislation, claiming that if the PATRIOT Act is not extended it would give the terrorists the “opportunity to plot against our country.”
While condemning Rand Paul’s opposition to the PATRIOT Act as “political grandstanding” this is what Harry Reid had to say in defense of the act:
“When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we will be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot against our country undetected,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “Now, the Senator from Kentucky is threatening to take away the best tools we have for stopping them”
According to Harry Reid’s statement, Rand Paul is opposing this issue purely for political reasons and his opposition to the PATRIOT Act would make the United States more vulnerable to attacks by terrorists who seek to destroy this country. I find this position to be quite interesting indeed because it was Harry Reid himself who opposed the PATRIOT Act in 2005 and stood on the steps of the capital and proudly declared, “we killed the PATRIOT Act” to the applause of those who were gathered there.
And yet now that a Democrat is in the White House Harry Reid is defending the very legislation that he opposed in 2005 when a Republican was in the White House, and he has the balls to declare that Rand Paul is grandstanding for political reasons? What this should prove to the American people is that it was Democrats such as Harry Reid and Barack Obama who were simply opposing the PATRIOT Act in 2005 for political reasons. The fact that Harry Reid and Barack Obama are now asking for the continuation of a policy they so vehemently opposed a few short years ago should show the American people that it was the Democrats who opposed the PATRIOT Act back in the day who were the ones who were “grandstanding” a few short years ago.
Harry Reid and Barack Obama’s duplicity, hypocrisy, and political gamesmanship is on full display here; during the debate over the PATRIOT Act what was once a “great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism” according to Russ Feingold when the PATRIOT Act was defeated in 2005 is now “political grandstanding” now that Barack Obama is in the White House.
These people’s hypocrisy is so obvious that it should be insulting to the vast majority of the American people.
Earlier this legislative session the New Hampshire House and Senate passed “right to work” legislation which would make New Hampshire the 23rd “right to work” state in the nation but the bill was vetoed by Governor Lynch. While the Senate passed the bill with a veto proof majority the House did not.
House Speaker William O’Brien needed to swing the votes of roughly 15 Republicans who originally voted against the “right to work” bill in order to override the governor’s veto and he was confident enough that he could do so that he put the vote on the fast track and scheduled the vote for May 25th–today.
The House Speaker believed that he was close to the number needed to override the veto but wasn’t quite there so he urged House Republicans who refused to change their votes to stay away from the State House for the vote so he wouldn’t need as many votes to override the veto. In essence their absence would be an override vote without an actual vote to put them on the record. In other words, William O’Brien was asking House Republicans to put the party ahead of the constituents these House Republicans are supposed to represent.
Unfortunately for Speaker O’Brien, the attendance in the House was at its highest level of this session and because of this–knowing that he did not have the votes–he decided to delay the vote on the “right to work” veto override, declaring that this was not the appropriate time to hold the vote.
Unions complained about this manuever:
Unions complained, saying O’Brien should be interested in holding a vote when attendance is highest, not when members who side with him are on hand are ready to vote.
And you know what? This is the one time that I actually agree with the unions because this goes beyond my personal feelings on this issue; this is about the way our government is supposed to work, this is about the system. The State House was near full capacity, which means that most of the residents were represented today; this is the best time to take a vote on ANY issue because the outcome of the vote will most likely best represent the will of the people and yet William O’Brien decided that his political agenda was more important than the will of the people of New Hampshire.
I would not let the Democrats in the Congress get away with something like this and I would not let Barack Obama get away with something like this so I cannot in good conscience support the House Republicans in their effort to persuade other House Republicans to disappear before the vote was taken because it would be in the best interest of their agenda.
This is what the Democrats in Wisconsin did; they fled the state rather than vote on an issue they knew was a lost cause and I condemned them as cowards for doing this. There is very little difference between the actions of the Wisconsin Democrats and what Speaker O’Brien tried to do by asking Republicans to not show up for a vote and I cannot defend it.
New Hampshire Republicans do not need to stoop to the level of Wisconsin Democrats.
During his “Muslim outreach” speech last week Barack Obama suggested that Israel should cede its borders back towards her pre 1967 borders in an attempt to promote peace talks with those states who seek her ultimate destruction. Needless to say this was met with condemnation from Republicans and conservatives in the Congress and all across the blogosphere.
As is evidenced from the reception and multiple standing ovations the Israeli Prime Minster received while addressing a joint session of the Congress it would seem as if it is not only the Republicans and conservatives who are dismayed with Barack Obama’s Israeli concession speech–Democrats are beginning to side with Benjamin Netanyahu over Barack Obama on this issue.
One Democrat, Robert Andrews of New Jersey, went as far as saying that Barack Obama was almost siding with Hamas over Israel:
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) said Tuesday that Obama is “tilting toward Hamas” – a reference to the Palestinian group the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization. He emphasized that Congress would never base its approach to Israeli aid on such a position.
“A majority of the Congress disagrees with him,” Andrews said of Obama.
And if that isn’t proof enough that the president’s new Israeli policy is ill-conceived on its own than we need to look no further than the fact that two of the most powerful Democrats in the Congress–Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer–also oppose Barack Obama’s new Israeli policy. Here is what Harry Reid had to say:
No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or about anything else
Normally I would be of the opinion that if a United States president held a position that Harry Reid opposed he was doing something right, but on this rare occasion I have to agree (gulp) with Harry Reid. It takes an extraordinary circumstance for one Democrat leader to turn against another and this is one such occasion.
Now that Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer have publicly come out against Barack Obama for throwing our one true ally in the Middle East under the bus it will be interesting to see which Democrats stand with the president and which Democrats stand with Benjamin Netanyahu–judging by the reaction of the Congress yesterday I am willing to bet that Barack Obama is feeling pretty lonely right about now.
Back in 2003 New Hampshire passed a parental notification bill which required that the parents of an UNDERAGE girl be notified before their child got an abortion. This law was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court because it did not include an exemption when the prospective mother’s life was in danger. Rather than add the provisions to the law which would render the law constitutional–because any law which restricts abortion is seen as a threat by liberals–the New Hampshire legislature, which at the time was ruled by a Democrat majority, passed a repeal of the law which was signed by Governor John Lynch.
Today the New Hampshire Senate passed a parental notification law with the exemptions in place which will pass constitutional muster and because this bill has already passed the New Hampshire House it will be headed to Governor John Lynch’s desk for either his signature or his veto. While this bill is far from controversial as 47 states already have similar laws on the books the New Hampshire governor is as of yet undecided on this legislation.
Here in New Hampshire a minor student cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental permission and a student cannot even go on a field trip without parental permission but they are allowed to have an abortion on demand without the parents even knowing what is going on and I find that to be absurd.
Under current New Hampshire law the state has undermined the rights of the parents and it is time to restore the rights of the parents and I highly urge Governor Lynch to sign this bill. It is time for the New Hampshire government to get out of the parenting business and let the parents of these MINORS do what they feel is best for their children–perhaps they will feel an abortion is best and perhaps they will not, but one thing is certain; the parents need to know if their MINOR daughter is contemplating an invasive procedure such as having an abortion. Contrary to the liberal position, the government does not always know what is best.
Ministry of Propaganda? Barack Obama creates a new government agency to control his message
According to this Huffington Post article Barack Obama has created a new position within his regime and has hidden it inside his communications department to avoid alerting the taxpaying public to this new expenditure. The title of this new position is the Director of Progressive Media & Online Response and it will be filled by a man named Jesse Lee.
What will Jesse Lee be responsible for in the Obama regime?
The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.
Propaganda control, that’s what this is. It certainly seems as if Lee and his minions will be scouring the internet for anti-Obama writings and will then “coordinate” a response to those stories using a network of progressive bloggers to harass and intimidate people who dare to speak ill of Dear Leader.
It also signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive engagement in the online world in the months ahead.
When Barack Obama made his “Muslim outreach” speech last week he declared that it was time for Israel to retreat to her pre 1967 borders–giving up her holiest sites and best lines of defense–as a sign that Israel was serious about keeping the peace, but he did not require anything in return for Israel’s sacrifice. In effect Barack Obama was rewarding the bad behavior of those countries which seek the destruction and annihilation of Israel while punishing Israel for the bane of her existence.
It seems to many people that if Barack Obama was going to ask for concessions from Israel that he would at least get an assurance from her enemies that Israel had a right to exist–this is where all legitimate peace negotiations should start. Israel’s enemies do not believe she has the right to even exist and all negotiations should start with Israel’s enemies. How can Israel be expected to negotiate with a people who believe that she is an illegitimate country which should be wiped from the face of the earth?
Now Hamas has reacted to the president’s proposal and they are not favorable to it. Read more…
With the so-called frontrunners for the GOP nomination for the presidency being less than impressive I have decided to take a close, hard look at the “second tier” players, Herman Cain being among them. The early returns on Herman Cain I found to be impressive, but recent revelations about his involvement with the Federal Reserve and support of TARP has soured me on his candidacy, yet not enough for me to rule him out as my choice just yet–although I have to admit that I do not find him to be as attractive of a candidate as I did before I learned about this.
Yesterday Herman Cain finally made it official, he is running for president of the United States and I have to say that for the most part I found his announcement speech to be inspiring and he is on the verge of winning me back.
In an obvious dig at the current president–and speaking without a teleprompter and seemingly from the top of his head–he said that America needed a leader, not a reader and claimed that he would provide that leadership. But he did make one mistake towards the end of his speech that I cannot overlook.
While claiming that we should not rewrite the constitution, but reread the constitution-a statement that I agree with–he declared that while we were reading the constitution we should not stop at the part in the constitution which states that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because the document continues on to say that when the government infringes on these rights we have the right to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government. The problem here is that these words do not appear anywhere in the constitution, they appear in the Declaration of Independence. He mixed up his founding documents, and it seems to me that somebody who is running for president should have his facts in order when quoting the founding documents.
However, as I stated above, he was speaking without a teleprompter and seemingly without notes, so if this was a one time slip I can live with it, however if this occurs more than once without correction–ala Michele Bachmann–I will have to look for another candidate to throw my support behind because I firmly believe that in order to know where the country is headed you need to know where we came from.
Here is the video of Herman Cain’s announcement:
Orrin Hatch to introduce a resolution in the Senate opposing Barack Obama’s new Israeli policy
Israel is America’s one and only true, reliable ally in the Middle East. Sure we have other so-called allies in that part of the country, but they are begrudgingly tenuous allies of necessity whereas Israel has been our one true friend in the region. As everyone knows by now, during his “Muslim outreach” speech last week Barack Obama reversed America’s long standing position and threw Israel under the bus (to use Mitt Romney’s analysis of the speech) by demanding that she return her borders to the pre 1967 lines, thus giving her enemies red meat in the struggle for Israel’s survival–and further straining the relationship between the United States and Israel.
Barack Obama’s proposal would take from Israel some of her holiest sites as well as the Golan Heights–her only defensible position against Syria, and land that she won in battle after being attacked by Syria from that very spot. Barack Obama’s decision either shows a lack of understanding of Israel’s history, a certain naivety and lack of experience, or worse, a certain hostility towards Israel that hasn’t been seen in a United States president since the 1970’s.
America's Watchtower 