Sneakeasy/law

What part of "Unconstituional" do Obama & the Dems not understand?

FROM THE PIECE:

"The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

Even the Supreme Court ought to recognize the "you exist, therefore you're regulated" rationale as a bridge too far.

But court-watchers have learned never to underestimate the justices' creativity in inventing new rationalizations for constitutionalizing the unconstitutional."

Be afraid, very afraid.

A disgraceful, disgusting, and horrifying decision.

We are at war, people, and these men are Terrorist Soldiers, in an Army fighing against the Western World.

Treat them as such, and try them, convict them, and punish them, in the appropriate way.

2 things from this report are important:

1. "Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It is also a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism.

If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom.

And if lawmakers get upset about notorious terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda."

2. I support the sentiments of Sgt. Tim Sumner, brother-in-law of FDNY Joseph G. Leavey, 45, Ladder 15, WTC):

"We have an announcement as well:

We will fight with every remaining breath in our bodies both their bringing KSM and the rest of the 9/11 conspirators to federal courtrooms within walking distance of where they slaughtered our loved ones.

And whomever finds Manhattans federal courthouse near Ground Zero a "sentimental favorite" for the 9/11 trials is a damn fool and they ALL ought to be fired.

Pass that message on, far, wide, and up and down the chain-of-command."

The links in this story by Mark Stein are important reading for all freedom loving Americans.

As he writes:

"Liberty is lost very quietly and quickly. And trying to get it back is slow and painful - particularly at a time when artists, universities, publishers and others who congratulate themselves incessantly on their truth-telling courage find increasingly pre-emptive self-censorship the better part of valor.

The Europe of 2020 will have considerably less freedom of expression than today.

American exceptionalism is going to have to be exceptionally exceptional to hold out against that trend."

A great article!

If, by the title of the piece, or the statement below, you think you know where this essay is going, think again. ;-D

FROM THE PIECE:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Nowhere does it say that you are granted the right of freedom of speech, it says you have it, were born with it, and the government cannot do anything about it.

But that's not how it's viewed or even talked about by politicians these days."

A short video, discussing a planned law, the dangerous Cyber Security Act of 2009, that would affect the interent, got a lot of eyeballs, and comments, on YouTube, before it was banned from the site.

So the video is now on the new Conservative Alternative to YouTube:

"YouTube disabled this video yesterday due to "Inappropriate Content." It obviously does NOT violate the Terms of Service, but there's no way to contact YT to appeal their decision. Too bad, since it had about 20k views and some really great discussion."

Well, hell, don't that just beat all?

Now what? ;-D

FROM THE ARTICLE:

"Courts have consistently held that the Privacy Act does not apply to the office of the president and that this was by congressional design, which it is without power to alter.....

There's nothing totalitarian about asking supporters to gather this information. And there's nothing morally contemptible (as the terms "snitch" and "rat" suggest) in passing along this information, if you genuinely think that the information is misleading.

Now of course if you think that the Administration would prosecute your friend for e-mailing you supposed "disinformation about health insurance reform," then indeed you shouldn't help the Administration do it. But, seriously, is that really likely?"

A very interesting, and troubling, story:

FROM THE ARTICLE:

"Amazon CEO Jeffrey P. Bezos has apologized to Kindle customers for remotely removing copies of the George Orwell novels "1984" and "Animal Farm" from their e-reader devices. The company did so after learning the electronic editions were pirated, and it gave buyers automatic refunds. But Amazon did it without prior notice."

President Obama should have kept his mouth shut until he read this, then still kept it shut.

If the Sgt. had NOT done his job and the break-in was for real, he would be accused of not caring for the black community.

It is a no win situation when the Left gets it's panties in a bunch over the actions of Law Enforcement.

Sgt. Crowley should not apologize for doing his job!