ACLU Says Illegal Immigrants Should Have More Rights Than Americans

The Constitution gives citizens a right to an attorney to represent them if they are accused of a crime.

We also have a right to own a car; it doesn’t mean that Obama should buy me my Ferrari.

The ACLU has ALWAYS been an un-American organization with the intent of advancing the cause of communism:

“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” — ACLU founder Roger Baldwin

The left hasn’t changed a bit since.  Because history now proves that Obama is for every damn thing on Baldwin’s list right down to massive disarmament (both in terms of our nuclear arsenal and in terms of our army).  His demand for “social justice,” his race-baiting, his “You didn’t build that” attack on job creators, etc., etc. ad nauseum, complete “the goal” of the final sentence above.

As Obama fomented a border crisis – frankly a complete meltdown – by on the one hand abrogating our laws and refusing to prosecute EVEN CRIMINAL illegal aliens and on the other utterly failing to lead or even show up at the border – the left has moved in much the way Stalin moved into Eastern Europe as the exhausted forces of freedom simply let him seize millions of people into the bondage of the very socialism and communism that the ACLU so fervently desires.

And so how is the ACLU – according to the leftist mandate – “never allow a serious crisis to go to waste” – doing to exploit Obama’s self-created crisis?

This:

Flood of lawsuits to follow wave of illegal immigrants?
By Melissa Jacobs
·Published July 11, 2014
·FoxNews.com

Illegal immigrants pouring across the border could trigger a wave of lawsuits flooding the U.S. court system for years and costing taxpayers millions, according to legal experts.

The American Civil Liberties Union has already sued the federal government to ensure that each of the 60,000-plus unaccompanied children who have come across the border since November gets taxpayer-funded representation at deportation hearings. But legal advocacy groups who represent illegal immigrants could file additional suits alleging improper treatment at the hands of the government. And with the system overwhelmed, there’s little doubt corners are being cut.

“You can bet there is a phalanx of left-wing lawyers trying to line up illegal alien plaintiffs,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

“The sky’s the limit, it could be a nightmare.”- Jessica Vaughn, The Center for Immigration Studies

Slow asylum hearing dockets — like those that have already prompted a class action suit on behalf of 40,000 illegal immigrants — are certain to get much worse, experts say. But every interaction between the government and the illegal immigrants pouring in could potentially trigger a cause of action if lawyers can prove the letter of the law was not followed.

Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said there’s little the White House can do now that the children — most of whom are from Central America —are already here. Under U.S. law, kids from non-contiguous countries cannot be turned back at the border and must be granted deportation hearings.

“If we start sending these kids back to their home countries, there will be lawsuits galore,” said Vaughn. “We’re already seeing suits for conditions and denial of privileges. The sky’s the limit, it could be a nightmare.”

President Obama has asked Congress for $3.7 billion to deal with the border crisis, money that would include tending to the care and legal needs of the illegal aliens. But the courts are already clogged with suits like one from a woman who claims the Border Patrol kept her in a car for eight hours without feeding her and another filed in March by Americans for Immigrant Justice claiming illegal immigrants in the Texas Rio Grande Valley facility were held in brightly lit, cold, cot-less cells.

And earlier this month the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that a Mexican teenager killed on Mexican soil by a Border Patrol agent who claims he was being pelted with rocks had rights under the U.S. constitution. His family is suing for $325 million.

Vaughn said the administration makes it easy to sue the federal government, both with policies that critics say have invited the influx, and half-hearted efforts in court.

“This administration is empowering these groups by not lifting a finger to defend itself,” Vaughn said. “ICE often times doesn’t bother to send a prosecutor to appear in court. This creates a climate which makes people think they can get away with anything.”

Illegal immigrant advocacy groups hailed the ACLU suit filed Wednesday in San Antonio on behalf of eight illegal immigrants ranging in age from 10-17. Immigration courts do not have to provide legal representation for adult illegal immigrants who are fighting deportation, but the ACLU suit said that the children it is representing must get legal help. And they have not been able to find lawyers, partly because the nation’s immigration courts are backlogged by 367,000 pending cases of children and adults, according to the suit.

A ruling that the government must provide representation could prove expensive to taxpayers, but no one expects illegal immigrant children to represent themselves. And the Obama administration has already signaled it is open to the idea of providing legal help where needed.

“We welcome this suit with open arms,” says Cheryl Little executive director of Americans for Immigrant Justice.  “The money the president has requested is not enough. We’ve been overwhelmed and at crisis level for two years. Free legal assistance for children regardless of their status can mean life or death.”

Under the president’s proposed money request the Department of Justice would be given $15 million to hire attorneys to defend unaccompanied minors against deportation in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. An additional $1.1 million would be allocated for “immigration litigation attorneys” who, presumably, would assist adult illegal immigrants in their proceedings.

“The president is asking U.S. taxpayer to spend millions to help illegal immigrants who knowingly broke our laws to avoid deportation,” says Vaughn. “The federal government is undercutting its entire mission. No one is defending our law.”

Vaughn says the law requires legal counsel and hearings for unaccompanied minors but questioned why children released into parental custody are being treated as unaccompanied under the law. According to Vaughn almost half of the children in the current border crossing surge have been released to relatives living in the U.S.

However, Little said she’s concerned there is a move underway to send children back to their home countries too soon by using video conferencing to expediting hearings which according to Little would “violate these children’s right to their full and fair process.”

The ACLU is looking for other causes of action amid the border crisis, too.

“There was only one open bathroom and no activities for children who were stuffed into small cells,” said ACLU of Texas senior staff attorney Adriana Pinon. “We’re monitoring the situation. There’s always the possibility of a lawsuit. ”

Meanwhile, conditions for agents working in border facilities remains challenging.

“Agents in the El Paso and Laredo sectors are getting sick,” said Shawn Moran vice president of the National Border Patrol Council. “We’re working in close proximity doing medical screening on people and seeing cases of H1N1 swine flu, chicken pox, measles, lice and tuberculosis.  People who are supposed to be cleared are being released into the community.  Given the dormant period of some of these diseases there is a concern. ”

Moran doubts there’s much legal recourse for agents who get injured or sick as a result of the border crisis. And taxpayers won’t have much recourse, either, Vaughn predicted.

“The average taxpayer does not have the means,” Vaughn said. “There’s more financial aid available to illegal immigrants than there is for the average taxpayer.”

The ACLU is a radical subversive communist organization that is trying to exploit well-intentioned laws and use them to subvert and collapse America.

It’s classic leftist Cloward and Piven, Obama-style.

We cannot possibly afford all of this.  But the left doesn’t care.

In addition to the terror of all the horrible diseases that are flooding into America, city-by-city as Obama literally DUMPS thousands of illegal immigrants across the country – there’s also the terror of actual TERRORISM.  Because there is absolutely NO control over our border because of Obama and literally everyone on earth knows it now.

Michael Scheuer – the man who headed the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit – addressed the “other” crisis, the other “humanitarian situation” – of allowing TERRORISTS to cross the border because the left wants the millions of other illegal immigrants who will flood in with the terrorists.  He described over 100 Arabs a month being apprehended illegally crossing our borders and said:

SCHEUER: Well, look at our borders, Sir. If National Defense doesn’t include border control, then National Defense is a nonsense. They don’t care — look at the jobs they have given to the men and women in Afghanistan that are impossible to do. They don’t care that so many of those young men and women are losing their lives, and not having a chance to win because they’re not supported.

They want to play games at home. They want to stay in power forever. They want their office. They don’t want to protect the United States. They somehow think that America is eternal and can never be defeated. Well, they’re going to be in for a great wakeup call, Sir.

Of course, now we know that Obama lied when he claimed he was enforcing our border laws and deporting illegal immigrants.  We know that he played games with the statistics to deceitfully inflate his border numbers.  We know he’s been releasing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants back into America even when they have been convicted of crimes.  We know that the same Obama who has refused to deport CRIMINAL illegal immigrants has criminalized the agents and officers on our border for trying to enforce the law.

We know that the Obama administration – and this is amazing, given that Arabs who are very possibly TERRORISTS are coming into America over the Mexican border – are being allowed to fly commercial airlines all over America without any other form of ID but the “notice to appear” that is itself easy to forge:

MCALLEN, Texas—Illegal aliens are being allowed to fly on commercial airliners without valid identification, according to the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). “The aliens who are getting released on their own recognizance are being allowed to board and travel commercial airliners by simply showing their Notice to Appear forms,” NBPC’s Local 2455 Spokesman, Hector Garza, told Breitbart Texas.

“This is not the CBP [Customs and Border Protection] or another federal agency renting or leasing an aircraft, these are the same planes that the American public uses for domestic travel,” said Garza. “This just adds insult to injury. Not only are we releasing unknown illegal aliens onto American streets, but we are allowing them to travel commercially using paperwork that could easily be reproduced or manipulated on any home computer. The Notice to Appear form has no photo, anyone can make one and manipulate one. They do not have any security features, no watermark, nothing. They are simply printed on standard copy paper based on the information the illegal alien says is the truth.”

Spokesman Garza continued, “We do not know who these people are, we often have to solely rely on who they say they are, where they say they came from, and the history they say they have. We know nothing about most of them, ICE releases them into the American public, and now they are boarding aircraft at will with a simple paper document that anyone can easily alter or reproduce themselves.”

And we know that the left frankly doesn’t give one flying DAMN about the United States of America, or as the Obama administration is probably calling it, Los Estados Unidos de Obama.”

There IS going to be a catastrophic wakeup, either due to another terrorist attack as Obama allowed a group even WORSE than al Qaeda to install a caliphate across Iraq and across Syria after criminally withdrawing our troops from what had been a completely stable and secure Iraq and after his “red line” fiasco in Syria; or due to the catastrophic collapse of the American dollar due to reckless and insane spending.

Either way this nation is in for “a great wakeup call.”

Tragically, we will wake up to a knife slashing through the national jugular vein.

But just remember this: the same Obama who mocked any idea that the border was out of control –

“They said we needed to triple the border patrol. Well, now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the border patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat.”

– is now demonically demonizing Republicans over a crisis that THEY WARNED ABOUT FOR YEARS and Obama mocked.

And these same dishonest liberals who believe that America is eternal and they can spend literally hundreds of trillions of dollars in a way that every civilization in the entire history of the human race would call insane will just as dishonestly demonize the people who are trying to staunch the flow of our spending for the upcoming catastrophic bankruptcy of America.

Our debt in 2012 according to the CBO’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario was $222 trillion, having grown by a massive $11 trillion from the year before.  What was Obama’s response?  He killed the reporting of the Alternative Fiscal Scenario.  Because, apparently, if you don’t know you’re bankrupt you can keep spending.

Mark my words, America is already a headless chicken staggering mindlessly around before it drops completely dead.  And as it comes crashing down, the left that CAUSED our destruction will be pointing the finger at the people who desperately tried to prevent it.

And then Roger Baldwin and the ACLU will get their wish as Government steps in to complete the takeover just as the left has always dreamed.  And then they will finally be free to worship the Antichrist and take his mark as Government seizes complete control over our lives.

Liberals Lying To Liberals: More Than Half Of All Lawyers From Libturd Law Schools Can’t Find The Jobs They Were Promised They’d Be Able To Find

There was that funny joke: what do you call a million lawyers rotting on the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.

Millions of lawyers rotting in the bottom of their parents’ basements would be an even better joke – other than the fact that many of them took out federal school loans and will never pay them back.  That takes some of the haw-haw factor out of this story.

Liberals OWN the law schools.  The bar associations overwhelmingly lean to the left.  That, on top of the fact that liberals dominate the university system in general, kind of makes the issue facing these law school graduates liberals’ fault, doesn’t it?

Given the fact that lawyers give over 90 percent of their political contributions to Democrats, what this pretty much is is institutional liberals lying to young liberals.

Only when liberals get screwed, they do what most other liberals do and sue.

One of the things that surprised me is that the legal profession apparently JUST discovered that there was something called “computers” or “the internet.”  Most of us, of course, have been aware of this stuff for twenty years or so.  So either lawyers seriously need to update their understanding of the actual world, or the excuse you see below is a version of Obama’s “the bad economy isn’t my fault; it’s everybody and everything else’s fault.”

Class action: Law school grads claim misleading reports of success
By Maura Dolan
April 2, 2013, 11:16 a.m.

SAN FRANCISCO — Dozens of law graduates across the nation have joined class-action lawsuits alleging that law schools lured them in with misleading reports of their graduates’ success.

Instead of working in the law, some of the graduates were toiling at hourly jobs in department stores and restaurants and struggling to pay back more than $100,000 in loans used to finance their education. Others were in temporary or part-time legal positions.

Michael D. Lieberman decided to enroll at Southwestern Law School after reading that 97% of its graduates were employed within nine months. He graduated in 2009, passed the bar on his first try but could not find a job as a lawyer. He worked for a while as a software tester, then a technical writer, and now serves as a field representative for an elected official.

Lieberman, who earned his undergraduate degree at UC San Diego, believes his law degree may still be a “useful tool,” but he and other graduates said a suit they filed was intended to combat “systemic, ongoing fraud prevalent in the legal education industry” that could “leave a generation of law students in dire financial straits,” according to the complaint.

Nearly 20 lawsuits — five of them against California schools — are being litigated at a time of dim employment prospects for lawyers. Much of the work once done by lawyers can now be done more quickly by computers.

Online services have made law libraries largely unnecessary, allowing corporations to do more work in-house. Software has sped the hunt for information needed in discovery and other legal tasks, and Web-based companies offer litigants legal documents and help in filling them out. Even after the economy improves, some experts believe the supply of lawyers will outstrip jobs for years to come.

Although lawyer gluts come and go, “I don’t think any of them rival the situation we are seeing today,” said Joseph Dunn, chief executive of the State Bar of California, which regulates the state’s 230,000 attorneys. “The legal community in all 50 states is being dramatically impacted.”

New and inexperienced lawyers, unable to find jobs at law firms, are opening private practices, potentially putting clients at risk, according to a California bar report issued in February. To confront “serious issues of public protection,” a bar task force has recommended requiring practical experience as a condition of a license. The California Supreme Court would eventually have to approve the new rules.

Besides Southwestern, alumni have sued San Francisco’s Golden Gate University, the University of San Francisco and San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson and California Western schools of law. Each school charges about $40,000 a year in tuition.

But not everyone shares the dismal outlook. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine Law School, said his students are finding full-time jobs as lawyers even during this slow economy.  “It is not the same across all law schools when you look at employment prospects,” he said.

Rudy Hasl, dean of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, said the retirement of baby boomers also would open up jobs.

Both deans said there was huge unmet demand for legal services for the poor and middle class, and the next generation of practitioners might be able to fill that demand. The state bar agrees.

“Across the country, the need for legal services among those who cannot pay or have limited ability to pay has never been higher,” the bar report said.

We’re starting to find out what liberals truly think about education, aren’t we?  It’s called “How to exploit stupid people.”  And Democrats are masters in that art.

I submit that “the law” has degenerated into a system whereby cowards get to harass, intimidate and destroy people with virtually no risk to themselves.  Just as “higher education” has degenerated into a system whereby leftist professors get to harass, intimidate and bully students with propaganda in place of where the truth ought to be.  The “legal services for the poor and middle class,” of course, include cars filled with people working for trial lawyers who cut off helpless drivers and then slam on the brakes so they can sue, and disabled people who work for attorneys by going to business after business hoping to find one that isn’t fully enough complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act so they can sue.  It’s not a shame at all that these liberal cockroach predators upon society have overbred themselves.  The problem is that after eating their own, the surviving lawyers will keep feeding on the rest of us.

Progressive Liberals Are The Pharisees And Sadducees Of Modernity In America

Liberals love to castigate conservatives by labels such as “fascist” and “pharisiacal.”  But in both cases, they are actually looking into a mirror when they point their finger and hurl out that label.

First, allow me to make a very important distinction between “progressive liberalism” and “classical liberalism.”

Here is classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.^[1][2][3]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.^[4] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,^[5] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the free-market economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,^[6] utilitarianism,^[7] and progress.^[8]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.^[9]

With that understanding, the fact of the matter is that conservatives are the inheritors of classical liberalism.  We are the ones who want limited government under the rule of law with a laissez-faire economic policy.  The progressive liberals who dominate today are the “social liberals” whom we can now accurately call “socialist liberals.”

Liberalism is good in the classical sense; it is truly evil in the socialist sense.

I have many times asked liberal Democrats to explain how they disavow Karl Marx’s central defining statement of economic Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  To this day I have never received a response.

But I understand that our liberals are not honest people and will not wear the label “socialist” no matter how much it applies to them and to their purpose in establishing a giant totalitarian government that increasingly centrally plans the economy.  So I’ll call them “progressive liberals” instead.

The word “progressive” helps us understand Obama’s prophecy that his administration would “fundamentally transform America.”  That’s what they want: to reshape America not in the founding fathers’ image, but in their own self-image.

I have described liberals as trying to establish “Government as God.”   It is also called “statism.”  Here’s another way to put it: Who is your Savior? Do you turn to the God of the Bible – Who actually rather specifically warned man against big government – to provide to you?  Or do you want to turn to your government to meet your needs?  Our coins say, “In God we trust,” and progressive liberals have been trying to stomp that nonsense out for decades.  Because they trust in human government, not in God.

Here let me again cite Karl Marx.  In one of his most famous statements, after first stating that man invented religion, Marx said:

“Religion is … the opium of the people.  The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

Aside from the obvious fact that it is the Democrat Party who removed God from their party’s platform and cynically and frankly illegitimately put Him back in to a loud chorus of boos by the Democratic National Convention, aside from the fact that it is the Democrat Party that is at open war with religious freedom in America today, what did Karl Marx mean by this statement?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the economic haves and the economic have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today by the Democrat Party and by progressive liberals who energize that party.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves, in both Marx’s and Democrats’ understanding.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and taking what is theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, they were happy in their religion, which had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Since religion is an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

And how is the Democrat Party today not arguing the same damn case that Marx made?

As we shall see, this is important.  Marx’s anti-God message has been supplanted by a cynical Democrat Party who has replaced God with a flagrantly anti-God ideology (e.g., homosexual marriage and abortion) while dishonestly refusing to acknowledge that they did so.

The message of Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party is not the message of Jesus Christ, who most assuredly did not come to earth to either make Caesar’s government larger or to replace him with another version of big human government totalitarian tyranny.  The message of the former is that the poor should be angry and rise up to seize what is rightfully there’s either by vote or by force; the message of the latter was for the poor to be cheerful and content in the God Who watched over them and to trust in Him for His provision.

It’s interesting what does not happen when Jesus says, “Show me a coin.”  What Jesus does NOT say is that giving to Caesar (human government) is the same thing as giving to God.  Jesus makes a very clear contrast between the two.  Which do you want to empower?  Which do you want to give to?  Giant totalitarian human government, or God?  I want to give more to God; liberals want to stop me and force me instead to give more to government.

So why do I call the progressive liberals the “Pharisees and Sadducees” of modern America?

Well, first understand who the Pharisees and Sadducees were.  The Sadducees were the secular branch of Judaism.  They did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife; they were the closest things to secular humanists or atheists in their day.  And thanks to the Romans the Sadducees largely controlled the lucrative Temple and the money and political clout that went along with it.  The Pharisees were a group who had the people behind them because they were the champions of the Law.  And yet they were no longer using the Law of Moses as their guide; they had long since turned to the Mishnah, which they considered “a hedge around the Law.”

Basically, the Pharisees piled laws on top of laws on the backs of the people that had nothing to do with the Word of God.  That’s what Jesus rails on them for in Matthew 23.  When I hear Jesus say, “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger,” I think of Barack Obama taking away guns from parents’ while his own family will be safely protected by men with guns for their entire lives.  I think of the liberals like Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who put people in prison for not paying their taxes when he himself was a tax cheat.  I think of Jesus’ takedown of the most vile human beings in the world of His day – government-power-seeking thugs who used the law to exploit and burden the people – and I think of the Democrat Party and the stubborn ass that is its symbol.

If you broke the laws as handed down by the Pharisees and Sadducees, you were punished by the system.  With the full weight of the government backing that system.

Which is the same thing the progressive liberals who run the Temple of big government do.  They burden the people with taxes and regulations and laws and tell the people that thinking like them is the only way to be a good person.

Pharisees and Sadducees had different agendas, but John the Baptist said they were both the same in their hostility to God and called them both “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7).  Jesus also lumped them together (Matthew 5:17).  Both exploited the Law to get what they wanted and to burden and oppress those whom they wanted to burden and oppress.

In Jesus’ day, when you talked about “the law” it connoted the religious laws.  But our progressive liberals today talk about the law, the law the law every bit as much with every bit as much of an intent to impose their will on the people they are determined to dominate and rule over.  I can assure you that there are a LOT more laws that have been erected in the United States than there ever were in the Mishnah – as burdensome and unjust as that was.

Democrats are the Pharisees and the Sadducees of American culture today.  They are the priests of big government who demand more and more control the laws and by controlling the laws they exploit and burden the American people.  They erect more and more and more onerous and burdensome and loathsome laws and force us to abide by them or be punished.

By the way, Jesus did a lot of denouncing of the scribes, too.  Who were they?  They were the lawyers of the day.

Just look at which party the lawyers of our day support and which party has a buttload of system-manipulating lawyers, and my case is made complete.

The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees murdered Jesus in his day.  They are murdering America in our own.

Another Reason To Love Rick Perry: Because Ambulance-Chasers Loathe Him

There’s that old but oh-so-true joke:

Question: What would you call a million lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

Answer: A good start.

Lawyers routinely are in the hall of shame as one of the most distrusted professionals in America.

America is still the unrivaled leader of the world … in lawsuits.  We are the most litigious society on the face of the earth.  And every single item you buy you pay more for because of lawsuits.  Especially your healthcare, for what it’s worth.

Trial lawyers are like cockroaches, only you can (at least you can still) crush cockroaches without getting sued.

The only time trial lawyers aren’t slime is when they’re protecting you from another trial lawyer.  And of course even the trial lawyer on your side ends up raping you.

Trial lawyers really hate Rick Perry.  Which means he’s got to be a pretty good candidate.

Politico: Trial Lawyers Prep for War on Perry

Trial lawyers really don’t like Rick Perry, and one whose name should be familiar to PJ readers is gearing up to go after Perry as he runs for president:

Democratic Houston trial lawyer Steve Mostyn — who, along with his wife, Amber, donated nearly $9 million to Texas candidates and party committees in the 2010 cycle — said he’s in the process of forming “some federal PACs” to take on Perry. That will likely include a federal super PAC that could take in the kind of massive donations that are permitted in Texas.

Mostyn said his political spending wouldn’t just center on the trial lawyers’ agenda.

“The legal issues are important and near and dear to my heart,” Mostyn told POLITICO. “But more important is the myth that we’re doing great down here when we’re not. We’re falling behind the rest of the country, and the country is falling behind the rest of the world.”

But the “legal issues,” as Mostyn calls them, are far more than incidental to the hostile relationship between Perry and trial attorneys.

The governor has pushed through a string of tort reform laws, including a 2003 measure putting a monetary cap on non-economic damage awards. He passed another law in the most recent Texas legislative session, making it easier to dismiss some lawsuits and putting plaintiffs on the hook for legal costs in certain cases that are defeated or dismissed.

Texas used to be a land of milk and honey for trial lawyers like Mostyn. He made his considerable fortune in mold lawsuits, back when “mold was gold” (also: a giant trial lawyer scam). Mostyn’s firm also made a handsome profit, no one outside the firm knows how much due to the sheer volume of lawsuits they handled, off the last couple of hurricanes that struck Texas. Those lawsuits left the state’s windstorm insurance fund depleted and the state at risk of bankruptcy until Gov. Perry and the GOP legislature shored the fund up in the 2011 session. But the tort reform successes of 2003 and 2011 have really put trial lawyers on the back foot in Texas. Two trial lawyers have emerged as the prime sources of funding for Democrats and left wing causes in Texas: Mostyn and the late Fred Baron. Baron’s name should also sound familiar; before he died, he used a chunk of his fortune to help John Edwards cover up his love child situation. Baron’s money also funds Matt Angle’s “shadow party” that I’ve written about before. That the Baron estate and the Mostyn empire are the prime engines behind nearly all Democrat activity in the state of Texas gives the game away neatly, proving that when the Democrats talk about good government, they’re really talking about government that’s good for trial lawyers. Mostyn even employs a couple of Democrats currently serving in the legislature. Another Democrat trial lawyer likely to be involved in a war on Perry is former state Rep. Jim Dunnam. Dunnam lost in the 2010 wave to newcomer Marva Beck, so he is out of the lege at the moment, but not out of power in Democrat circles. Dunnam built his empire in part on viatical settlements, which are means by which terminally ill people cash in on their life insurance policies before they die. You can look at viaticals as a service to the terminally ill, or a predation on very vulnerable people in their hour of need, depending on your point of view.

So you’re likely to see several PACs appear out of nowhere, funding slick ads and attack web sites casting Rick Perry as a tool of rich devils, or a killer of education, or some other kind of boogeyman who kicks puppies, hates babies and just might be a shapeshifting vampire in the service of the Bilderbergers. Mostyn is very likely to be behind those ads and web sites, and his actual agenda has very little to do with the content of the attacks. He is all about restoring the old order in which trial lawyers were king.

I came across the following question: “Are too many laws, lawyers and lawsuits destroying small business in America?”  And there were some short Youtube videos to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgHFKyiIzzM&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-N4d8ocJ2s&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMtrhCUugX0&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eytbRmrIYZI&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1MF3lJCwbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

Yeah, they sure are.  If you actually want a job, you should join me in wanting these lawyers on the bottom of the ocean where the real sharks can take care of them.

If lawyers hate Rick Perry, that’s all I need to know to really like Rick Perry.

Obama REPEATEDLY IGNORED GENERALS As He Pursued His Political Policy Of First Surge Then Cut-And-Run In Afghanistan

Is Obama succeeding in Afghanistan?  Consider this little factoid: There are 280 provinces in Afghanistan; AND ONLY 29 OF THEM ARE UNDER U.S. OR AFGHAN CONTROL!!!

That’s what I call “failure.”  Obama is a failed president on every single front, both domestically and internationally.  More on that below.

What we have immediately below is documented proof that not only did Barack Hussein ignore his generals’ (and even both the senior Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers!!!) regarding military policy and strategy, but he that HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about it.

At what point do we demand the impeachment of this lying, corrupt dishonest fraud???

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military’s Advice on Afghanistan
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

Allen’s claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”

The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.”

(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.)

So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military’s range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president’s policy was within that range of options. Who is right?

We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration’s decision was “more aggressive” than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan’s “fighting season” typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year’s fighting season.

Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn’t military considerations that produced such a timeline but “risks having to do with other considerations.”

Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks for doing the call.  I’ve got a couple, but I’ll be quick.  Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?  And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it?  Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014?  And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, I’ll take part of that.  In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown.  There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out — so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number.

That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there’s a broad understanding among the national security team that there’s an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces.

So, to your first question, I would certainly — I would characterize it that way. There were a range.  Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.

There is no question which side is lying and which side is telling the truth.  BARACK OBAMA IS A LIAR AND A FOOL.

Let’s go back and contemplate how cynical and dishonest the Obama administration has been all along in its political game plan played with the lives of American servicemen:

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the  Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what  the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high  political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked  about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats  raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war”  and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.  In  retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading.  Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it  was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a  way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war.  It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the  Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just  against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as  a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is  the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on  terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but  stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a  few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in  conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t  win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in  a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no  way out.

More on this utterly hypocritical and cynical chutzpah here.  Which is even more maddening given the fact that the liberals who screamed about the two wars Bush got us in are almnost completely mum about the FIVE WARS Obama has us in.

And these same total pieces of cockroach scum who cynically pitched Afghanistan as “the good war” and Iraq as “the bad war” as a political ploy for Obama Democrats to demonize Bush and our American troops while pretending to remain pro-American security are now both taking credit for what they called “the bad war” in Iraq –

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could  be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going  to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the  summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually  moving toward a representative government.”

– while cutting and running in defeat from what they claimed was “the good war.”

By the way, Obama has NEVER bothered to listen to his generals in Afghanistan.  Which is why he is the clearest and most present threat to our national security.

Let’s consider what Obama did: after demonizing Bush – who was successful in Iraq where he chose to fight – Obama dragged us into the quagmire of Afghanistan.  He wanted a “political” surge.  Germany’s leftist Der Speigel rightly said Obama’s “new strategy for Afghanistan” “seemed like a campaign speech.”  And then they said:

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into  Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again.

Which reminds us that conservatives SAID the policy of “timetables” would never work and would fail.  And here we are now proving that assessment was 100% correct as we begin to cut-and-run having accomplished NOTHING but a “surge” of dead Americans and a “surge” in American bankruptcy.

What did I say back in December of 2009?  My title: “Obama’s Message To Taliban Re: Afghanistan: ‘Just Keep Fighting And Wait Us Out And It’ll Be All Yours’” should say it all.

Obama refused to listen to his generals when he refused to give them enough troops to begin with.  He compounded that stupid error by ignoring his generals and mandating a timetable for pullout that FURTHER guaranteed failure.  And now he’s AGAIN refusing to listen to his generals as he cuts-and-runs far faster than they can accommodate.

And the only thing more stupid that Obama can do is to export this policy of stupidly refusing to listen to his military experts.  Which is exactly what he did in Libya when he got us in there under utterly false pretenses:

“It was reported in March that Gates, along with Counterterrorism Chief John  Brennan and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, privately advised the  president to avoid military involvement in Libya — but they were overruled…”

Now we face an unmitigated debacle in Afghanistan as Obama cuts-and-runs.  We will be pulling troops out exactly when we most need them in the height of the fighting season.  And why?  Because Obama cynically wants to bring the troops home in time to bolster his pathetic campaign for a second term.

As a final comment about the Democrats’ fundamental hypocrisy, here’s a piece from 2004 Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry demanding that Bush “listen to his generals.”  Bush DID listen to his generals – which was why HE TURNED IRAQ AROUND INTO WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NOW SAYS IS “ONE OF THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.”

Here’s my question: where are you NOW, Kerry, you hypocrite coward???

Obama and Democrats have owed George Bush and Dick Cheney abject apologies for their lies and demagoguery of these two men for years.

Democrats are VERMIN.  They have been vermin for most of the last 50 years.  They have been documented vermin on American foreign policy all over the world.  And we need to keep reminding Americans as to what verminous rat bastards they have been and continue to be.

Obama will be an abject disaster for American foreign policy for decades to come.  And fighting under Obama’s foreign policy is exactly like Vietnam (or shall we call it “echoes of Vietnam”?).

Just like conservatives warned all along.

The moment I saw the “Jeremiah Wright” videos I realized that Barack Obama was a truly evil human being who would lead America to ruin.  It was like an apocalyptic vision of warning.  And it has turned out to be even worse than I feared…

Why I Blame Democrats For Gun Laws That Allow Crazies To Kill

This is in response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the nineteen shooting victims, and the six murdered citizens, in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday at the hands of someone who is clearly mentally ill.

It sounds rather crazy to have such a title to many, I’m sure.  After all, isn’t it Democrats who are constantly trying to criminalize gun ownership?  And isn’t it Republicans who are constantly trying to keep guns legal?

Yes.  Which is exactly why I blame Democrats every single iota as much as the most liberal Democrat blames Republicans for criminals or crazies with guns.

First of all, we have a constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, Democrats for years and years have argued that the 2nd Amendment essentially contains a typo, that “militia” should have appeared twice, but somehow the phrase “the people” got stuck in.

But “the people” really means “militia.”

So when you see “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it really doesn’t apply to citizens.  It only really applies to militias.  Militias have the right to assemble and redress the government.  You “people” just stay shut in your homes and leave the government alone.

And go through your Constitution and make the necessary corrections.  Replace every occurrence of the phrase “the people” with “militia.”  And see how many freedoms you would lose and just what an absurdly laughable interpretation the Democrats have for the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment clearly and obviously provides militias AND the people (i.e., the citizens of the United States, you and me) with the right to keep and bear arms.  And then it all but tells the Democrats to keep their paws off our guns (“… shall not be infringed”).

But the Democrats DO infringe.  And infringe, and infringe some more.

So we run into a problem: every time Republicans – who actually care about their Constitution – do anything to restrict gun rights or gun ownership, it ends up being a net-loss for guns and for the 2nd Amendment.  And every significant act involving a gun becomes the next cause to take away guns, as the following Newsweek article exudes:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

If Republicans try to make it tougher for criminals or crazies to get their hands on guns, Democrats will use that measure to shut the door all the tighter on every single law-abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional guarantees.  As I will show later in this article.

So because of Democrat refusal to recognize the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we have an impasse.  We have an impasse which prevents common-sense laws from being passed.

This is what should happen: Democrats should now and for all time recognize that every single law-abiding American in every single state and in every single town has the right to keep and bear arms.  And Republicans should in response begin to help make it tougher to get guns, so that criminals and the mentally ill do not fall through the gaping holes that the intransigence has imposed.

Unless and until that day happens, Republicans will have no choice but to fight every gun law, because they will continue to correctly see that Democrats and liberal judicial activists will continue to use every law passed to prevent “the people” from possessing guns.

Here’s the bottom line: liberals often repeat the principle stated by William Blackstone, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”  Benjamin Franklin took it even further, and stated “that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

And here here.  Even though it creates a system in which the innocent too often are denied justice as the guilty go free.

But lets ALSO acknowledge that the same Constitution also clearly affirms that it is better that ten, or a hundred criminals and psychos get their hands on guns than that just one innocent Person should be deprived.

If you liberals like the first principle, quit being a hypocrite and like the second one, too.

For me, I do not want to be forced to wait helplessly for the police to maybe never show up as vicious criminals terrorize – or do worse – to my family.  Rather, if you try to enter my home, scumbags, I’ve got something for you.

It is every bit as evil for any society to deny a person (the singular form of “the people”, by the way) to be able to defend himself, or herself, or his or her family, from violence, as it would be to convict innocent people to make sure the guilty don’t go free.

Nor let me fail to mention that the founding fathers clearly intended an armed citizenry to be a powerful obstacle against government tyranny.  That the founding fathers would want a tyrannous American government overthrown as much as they would want a tyrannous British government overthrown.

Any good gun law that truly has a chance of preventing criminals or crazies like Jared Loughner from obtaining guns necessarily would depend on a strict registration and licensing of every single gun.  And Republicans will RIGHTLY refuse any such registration and licensing until Democrats codify it into the law of the land that such a registry can NEVER EVER be used to take away our guns.

What we need to see is this: a powerful understanding of the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms such that, if any elected official, officer of the court, sworn law enforcement officer, or government employee undermines that law, they will immediately be recognized to have violated their constitutional oath and thereby disqualify themselves for their duties as politicians, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats.  And let the anti-gun policies which include heavy taxation and burdensome regulation be expunged.

And when that occurs, then let every gun be registered.  Let there be a listing of every individual who owns a gun(s), with every serial number and even with every ballistic sample from every gun, be taken.

If someone is convicted of a felony, or if someone’s mental condition deteriorates beyond a legal threshhold, then immediately the list is checked: ‘does this individual have a gun?’  And if so that gun is removed.

That’s the kind of system we need.  And it is the system we cannot have as long as the future question of the constitutional guarantee of gun ownership is in any way, shape or form an open question.

We’ve seen the sorts of laws Democrats have proposed being used against “the people” before in many other parts of the world.  We have seen it in tyrannous, totalitarian regimes throughout history.  First they demanded the registration of weapons; then they came and confiscated those weapons.  And no one could stand up against them, because only they had the guns.

The other thing it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out is that if we pass laws taking away the right to keep guns, only the law-abiding would follow the law.  Criminals would not follow the law;  I mean, dang, just look up the definition of “criminal.”

Therefore, until our law is clearly and completely understood to guarantee the right of gun ownership by every single law-abiding and mentally sane citizen, you will never see the kind of gun control laws that our society obviously needs.

Which is why I rightly blame Democrats for the lack of gun control laws that would prevent crazies like Jared Loughner from getting their hands on guns.

Democrats, the “living, breathing document, open to interpretation” theory of the Constitution needs to go down the drain once and for all in order for meaningful gun regulations to ever succeed.

Because this is America.

AP Gives Yet Another Lesson On How To Slant A Story

The mainstream media never ceases to be able to slant stories to confirm their liberal ideological biases.  Here’s yet another example:

Ending death penalty could save US millions: study

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Even when executions are not carried out, the death penalty costs US states hundreds of millions of dollars a year, depleting budgets in the midst of economic crisis, a study released Tuesday found.

“It is doubtful in today’s economic climate that any legislature would introduce the death penalty if faced with the reality that each execution would cost taxpayers 25 million dollars, or that the state might spend more than 100 million dollars over several years and produce few or no executions,” argued Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center and the report’s author.

“Surely there are more pressing needs deserving funding,” he wrote, noting that execution was rated among the least effective crime deterrents.

In just one death penalty trial “the state may pay one million dollars more than for a non-death penalty trial. But only one in every three capital trials may result in a death sentence, so the true cost of that death sentence is three million dollars,” the study’s author said.

“Further down the road, only one in ten of the death sentences handed down may result in an execution. Hence, the cost to the state to reach that one execution is 30 million dollars,” Dieter added in the report entitled “Smart on Crime.”

That’s right.  Big government liberals really do want to prevent government spending.  So let’s end the death penalty, ban guns, and increase abortions.

Let’s never consider reducing the endless legal procedures that Democrats’ campaign contributors get rich performing.  Or reducing the liberal legal activist groups’ that fight to the last lawyer to prevent even the most heinous monster from being executed.

I’ve got some other ideas as to how to make the death penalty more cost effective:

You really COULD make the penalty a lot cheaper, you see.  I for one am willing to do so.

There’s another big problem with the death penalty:

In today’s pathetic and perverted society,  a death sentence means a long and healthy life.  And most death row inmates die of old age.  We could change that, you know.

And if liberals REALLY want to reduce the massive government spending, here’s the best idea of all:

Are Conservatives Lonely On The Internet?

Am I the only conservative who often feels rather lonely on the internet?

There isn’t much in the way of official statistics out there. We have internet campaign donation figures that show Democrats are raising far more money online than Republicans.

I came across a study that found that far more liberals get their news from the Internet than do Republicans. And liberals are far more trusting than conservatives on the media across the board.

When I first started blogging – and I dare say to this very day – I have received far more comments from liberals than from conservatives. Which is kind of weird, considering that my blog is https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com. And the phrase “from a conservative perspective” immediately follows my blog title. It’s not like I’m trying to hide who I am or anything.

I’ve learned a few things.

I’ve learned that married people are far more likely to be conservatives than liberals.

I’ve learned that conservatives are far more likely to be raising children than liberals.

And both institutions leave a lot less time for surfing the internet, don’t they?

There also seems to be a rather clear bias on the Internet against conservatives. Recent stories have come out that Google has been actively discriminating against conservative sites.

But we conservatives have got to hang in there. If we don’t, we will lose the field.

An example is education. By and large, religious people – Christians especially – have been virtually shut out from academia. How did that happen?

Well, they largely did it to themselves. What we find is that for decades, even generations, Christians gave both their time and their money to their churches and to the mission fields, and secular humanists gave their time and their money to universities and to activist organizations such as the ACLU.

As a result, universities – following the money – took on a more and more secular humanist and liberal bent. Christians funded missionaries and preachers and secular humanists funded teachers and lawyers. In spite of the fact that universities in America were overwhelmingly founded by Christians for Christian purposes, universities betrayed their origins and turned against the very people who created them. There has recently been an increasingly successful effort by religious people to take back the field of education amongst all the pagans and infidels, but there is a long way to go.

Conservatives need to keep their foot in the door regarding the Internet, or we will find ourselves shut out. And once the door is closed – as was the case in education – it is very hard to force it open.

I hope you conservative bloggers keep fighting the good fight!

Just so you know, liberals are more likely to be unhappy, and more likely to be angry, according to studies. So that might explain all the vicious and mean-spirited comments you get.

So just remember this: you only have to be around liberals for a little while: they have to live with themselves all the time.

Obama’s “New Stand” On Energy Just Dumb In A Different Way

Yesterday’s New York Times ran an article on Obama’s new energy plan, titled “Obama, in New Stand, Proposes Use of Oil Reserve” by Larry Rohter.

As the New York Times puts it, Barack Obama now has a “new stand” on energy. Maybe it’s a new stand, but it’s the same old flip flopping from a serial panderer who has long-since proven he will say anything to get elected.

And his energy plan is still dumb, just dumb in a slightly different way.

According to the article, Obama “outlined an energy plan that contrasts with Senator John McCain’s greater emphasis on expanded offshore drilling and coal and nuclear technology.” That’s his first mistake. It’s bad enough to take oil – by far and away our dominant energy source – off the table. But to then take coal and nuclear energy off the table as well is to remove the only alternatives to oil that could even theoretically take up the slack. It amounts to sacrificing common sense to political gamesmanship.

Most of the reasons liberals and environmentalists have given over the years in decrying nuclear energy have turned out to be patently false. The French have been safely, effectively, and efficiently using nuclear power for decades. Rather than the half life of their fuel being millions of years, we are learning that it is actually only about sixty years. Big diff.

What Obama is doing is frankly abandoning what would best work in favor of what is most politically expedient.

John McCain is promising to increase our energy supply. Obama is promising to conserve. The problem is, you don’t grow an economy by conserving energy. We need more energy in order to continue growing our economy, and Obama refuses to allow its production.

The second thing Obama says – in contradiction from his earlier positions – was to open up the reserves and swap heavy crude for light crude. The problem with that is that heavy crude is difficult to refine, and requires special refineries. Elgie Holstein, an Obama energy advisor, said that while fewer refineries now are capable of refining the heavier stuff into gasoline, that won’t be the case in the future.

But it certainly WILL be the case in the future, unless Barack Obama and the Democrats are swept from power in an overwhelming Republican victory. It has been Democrats who are overwhelmingly to blame for the fact that we haven’t built any refineries for over thirty years. And it has been Democrats’ liberal supporters among the ranks of environmentalists and lawyers who continue to thwart effort after effort to build this vital energy infrastructure.

There’s something even larger at issue regarding Obama’s reversal to open up the strategic reserves, however. Opening up the reserves would lower the price of fuel by temporarily injecting more oil into the market. The very fact that Obama is calling for this step is an implicit acknowledgment that we need more oil. His policy thus comes into direct contradiction with his rhetoric. If we do what he says and open the reserves, what will we do when the price goes back up? Where will we get the oil we need then? Thus we find that Obama – in calling for the reserves to be opened – is really only calling for a temporary solution that he hope will take oil prices off the table long enough to get himself elected. This “solution” is therefore really just incredibly cyncial politics of the very worst kind.

Tapping our Strategic Petroleum Reserves won’t increase the total supply of oil. Only drilling will.

This leads to another example of Obama’s hypocrisy and stupidity on energy.

“Obama said his goal was to have 10 percent of the country’s energy needs met by renewable resources by the end of his first term, more than double the current figure.” But again, can’t you see that he is implicitly affirming that the energy sources he is actively opposing would still amount to supplying 90% of our energy needs even given his own best case scenario?

An intelligent man would worry more about securing the more than 95% of our energy we currently use and less about the 5% he intends to double to 10%. His previous policy against ANY increased drilling amounted to a suicide pact with environmentalist groups. And regardless of what he says now – in direct contradiction to his past position – is simply not to be trusted. Barack Obama has already assured us that he is a candidate who doesn’t want more oil, coal, and nuclear power. He wants less of them. But those are the very things that give us 95% of our energy!!!

We have had solar and wind tecnhology since the early 1980s. It’s not that we don’t have the technology; it’s that these technologies – and others as well – are nowhere near cost effective, efficient, or versatile enough to meet our needs. And other alternative sources are still more theoretical than practical. Are you willing to gamble your future and your children’s future on unproven theories?

T. Boone Pickens has been calling for increased wind power in his massive advertising campaign. He is also calling to drill up the whazoo and to produce more oil, more coal, and more natural gas energy even as we develop the alternative source of wind technology.

The remaining thing that Obama wants is a bunch of handouts. He wants $150 billion to go to his voters as a big government transfer payment, and he wants to have the government subsidize hybrid automobiles to the tune of $7,000 each. He also wants to add on a massive “windfall profits” tax against oil companies.

What we want is better sources of energy; what we don’t want is worse sources of energy. When government takes the decision out of the hands of the market and subsidizes something, the political intrusion very often encourages bad ideas and discourages good ones. Politicians understand special interests, political action committees, and cleverly disguised quid pro quo donations well enough; but they don’t understand the fundamentals of science, engineering, or economics. A classic example of this is corn-based ethanol. Politicians were essentially induced by campaign donations from special interests to subsidize ethanol in order to bring the price down to a level where it could compete, thereby preventing other technologies from entering the market. And now we know that using our food source as an energy source was a very bad idea.

Children are literally starving to death in some parts of the world, thanks to the Democrat-inspired effort to turn our food into fuel to avoid using oil. And it is also causing food shortages, higher costs, and hunger in the U.S. It was a terrible and immoral idea; and it was your Democrats at work.

Barack Obama wants the government to make the same fundamental mistake again and again. He is a socialist at heart, and he simply can’t trust the wisdom of the free market.

But that isn’t the end of Obama’s error of subsidizing one thing and taxing another.

When you tax something, you make it more expensive and you make it more scarce. Taxing oil companies – which already are the most heavily taxed corporate entities – amounts to penalizing them for producing the very thing we need more of. We tried windfall profits taxes during the Carter years and it was a fiasco for the same reasons it would be a fiasco today. What we need is cheaper and more abundant energy; what Obama wants to bring us is scarcer and more expensive energy.

To then offset a terribly flawed policy by underwriting it with government funding is a fool’s solution.

Obama recently said, “Breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face,” the Illinois Democrat told a supportive audience as he began a week’s focus on energy issues. “It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy.”

Obama is just as wrong to call Americans’ need for oil an “addiction” as he would be to call our need for water, food, or clothing an addiction. The American way of life has been based on readily available oil. Obama’s slogan betrays an anti-American agenda that would dramatically alter and impoverish our way of life if implemented. He is also wrong in his lack of understanding as to what such a “complete transformation of our economy” would cost, and he is wrong for not informing the American people of the REAL costs of his policies.

On a whole host of issues that will face the next president and chief executive, we need a grown-up who can provide mature solutions. Barack obama – a pandering flip flopper who offers one bad idea after another – simply isn’t that guy.

Supreme Court Gitmo Verdict Shows Liberals, Obama Unfit for Power

Liberals have proven yet again that they are absolutely not to be trusted with power.

In a decision stunning for it’s breathtakingly counterproductive stupidity, liberal Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled last Thursday “that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.” Conservative Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito held the very different view that foreign enemies of the United States captured while trying to kill American soldiers on foreign soil should not have the right to access American courts.

“At its heart, the 70-page ruling says that the detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge. [Justice Anthony] Kennedy also said the system the administration has put in place to classify detainees as enemy combatants and review those decisions is not an adequate substitute for the right to go before a civilian judge.”

Senator Linsey Grahem (R-SC), who helped Senator John McCain write the military commissions law, said, “What happened yesterday was unprecedented. Americans are going to be shocked to find that that mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now has the same legal standing as an American citizen.”

Solicitor General Paul Clement has pointed out that the process in place already provided “combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay, [the opportunity to] enjoy more procedural protections than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of warfare.” Congress had already given Guantanamo Bay prisoners more rights than any prisoners of war, in any war, ever. Congress provided enemy combatants the the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (DTA); they provided a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT); and a bi-partisan Congress (by 65 to 34 in the Senate) had already previously mandated that the 270 Guantanamo detainees were not free to avoid these procedures by filing habeas petitions in whatever federal district court they choose.

But the detainees’ lawyers have contended that the current law fails to protect the constitutional rights their clients were entitled to receive. They have demanded full habeas corpus rights, a constitutional protection that forces the government to justify in an open courtroom legitimate reasons an individual needs to be behind bars.

And now they have those rights. Yeah for them.

The decision also reveals the enormous divide between the two presidential candidates:

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

“We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,” he said.

“Barack Obama released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court decision “ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.”

“The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo – yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,” he said. “This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”

Notwithstanding the most liberal member of the Senate’s incessant attempt to demonize President Bush, the real “black hole” is the sheer number of questions this decision necessarily creates that must yet be answered. As Solicitor General Paul Clement pointed out, no nation has ever before in history granted so many rights and protections to its enemies as the United States now has. Just how many unintended consequences will this decision cause?

In order to get us to this point, the Supreme Court first had to toss out the principle of stare decisis (the abbreviated form of “stare decisis et non quieta movere” which means “stand by decisions and do not move that which is still.” No Supreme Court had ever before allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the United States to use its own courts to challenge his detention. Not until now.

As University of California at Berkely law professor John Yoo points out, “In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, we in the Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court’s word when we evaluated Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists.”

One of the Justices who participated in the World War II decisions was the late Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. His worldview was further shaped by his incredible experience as Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at Nuremburg. In the 1950 opinion that was tossed out into the dustbin of history last week, Jackson denied habeas to a Nazi prisoner because in all of history there had been “no instance where a court has issued habeas corpus to an alien enemy who…has never been within its territorial jurisdiction.”

Ponder for a moment Jackson’s admonition in a free speech case heard by his Court:

“If the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

Today we have too many liberals and Democrats who would argue that the sacrifice of an American city of tens of millions is surely preferable to the water boarding of a single terrorist who knew of an impending attack but refused to communicate with US intelligence. Why? Because such a sacrifice of American blood would be preferable to the sacrifice of a single Constitutional principle (such as the penumbras and emanations that were used to justify abortion?) as liberals (mis)understand it. Realize that for all the pompous posturing and self-righteous indignation over water boarding, it was a non-fatal, non-harmful, and non-invasive interrogation technique that was used only two or three times at most when it was determined to be absolutely necessary by intelligence professionals.

The second thing tossed out was the Constitutional principle of the separation of powers, “which grants all war decisions to the president and Congress. In 2004 and 2006, the Supreme Court tried to extend its reach to al Qaeda terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. It was overruled twice by Congress, which has the power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress established its own procedures for the appeal of detentions.”

Joel J. Sprayregen, a former general counsel of the Illinois ACLU who finally saw the light of judicial sanity, put it this way in his article, ‘It Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans to Be Killed‘ (available at):

The smallest of majorities is disregarding judicial history and pretending we live in a world where captured deadly enemies can be granted an advantage, without it affecting the likelihood of victory. I can’t say it better than Justice Scalia:

“America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole. On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon and 10 in Pennsylvania… It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane, to know the threat is serious… Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.”

In his blistering dissent, Justice Scalia said the decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

There are a couple of points that simply must be considered.

First of all, the practical impossibility of releasing Guantanamo detainees:

LONDON — More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers.

Since February, the Pentagon has notified about 85 inmates or their attorneys that they are eligible to leave after being cleared by military review panels. But only a handful have gone home, including a Moroccan and an Afghan who were released Tuesday. Eighty-two remain at Guantanamo and face indefinite waits as U.S. officials struggle to figure out when and where to deport them, and under what conditions.

The delays illustrate how much harder it will be to empty the prison at Guantanamo than it was to fill it after it opened in January 2002 to detain fighters captured in Afghanistan and terrorism suspects captured overseas.

In many cases, the prisoners’ countries do not want them back. Yemen, for instance, has balked at accepting some of the 106 Yemeni nationals at Guantanamo by challenging the legality of their citizenship.

Second (and related to the first), the sheer absurdity that results from granting our enemies captured on the battlefield our legal protections:

David Rivkin, a lawyer who worked in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, concedes that some Guantanamo detainees may be innocent, but if the system for evaluating people seized as terrorists becomes any more stringent, he said, “we wouldn’t be able to hold most of these people, not because they’re innocent but because we don’t have enough information to establish that level of rigor because, in war, you rarely have this kind of information. So, we would be releasing all of them; the system would be broken from the other side.

Rivkin said he does not believe the U.S. government could justify detaining most of the Guantanamo detainees if it were put to the more rigorous test of a habeas corpus hearing in U.S. courts. Moreover, “I’ve been told, back when I was at Guantanamo, that Guantanamo itself has become a gigantic al-Qaida training cell — it’s like a graduate school, if you will, for these guys.”

And despite the best efforts of the U.S. government, in many cases, Rivkin said, countries don’t want to take back the detainees.

“Let’s assume quaintly that they’re not innocent shepherds. We cannot hold them, and we cannot send them to any other country. What are we supposed to do — give them political asylum here? Let them walk the streets?” Rivkin said.

At least six former detainees have been killed or captured after their release. As many as fifty have returned to fight against American forces. Considering that we’re talking about fewer than 400 detainees, that’s a large number. And it was military tribunals which released them; how many more murderous fighters will be released when civilian courts become involved?

We have moral idiots like Erick Goldstein, who wrote, “The United States can begin to regain its moral authority in combating terrorism when the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is closed. But that’s only if the government stops sending detainees back to places like Tunisia.”

The fact of the matter is that many of the countries that have been most vociferous in critizing Guantanamo have privately refused to accept their own citizens back. Most of these people are extremely dangerous.

When Guantanamo is closed because of liberal policies and strategies, mark my words, they will start ending up in places like Tunisia, and places much worse. The American soldiers’ only alternative would be to execute their enemies in the field. But the liberals who create this total disaster will certainly never admit their stupidity.

Third, how are we to legally proceed against enemies captured on the battlefield? Could we have possibly won World War II if our soldiers and Marines were ordered to collect forensic evidence of German and Japanese soldiers’ firing upon them to present in court? Could we have brought non-American witnesses to American court to testify? Could we have defeated our enemies when, following every battle, American servicemen had to return home to testify against the captured enemy?

How are our forces supposed to proceed when the liberals on the Supreme Court now implicitly order them to become Crime Scene Investigators gathering evidence instead of soldiers fighting a war?

And how do we keep the terrorists from using the discovery process that must necessarily result from granting them habeas corpus rights in U.S. courts against us?

Sprayregen writes:

Scalia detailed how prisoners released from Guantanamo — because they were not considered combatants — had returned to murder Americans and our allies. Scalia is foreseeably correct in concluding that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

The Court is basing its decision — disregarding two centuries of decisions holding that habeas is unavailable to aliens captured abroad — on the fact that Gitmo is “functionally” under U.S. control. But so are U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Terrorists captured there are now invited immediately to compel our military to reveal its basis for detentions; this is the meaning of habeas. It gets worse. Justice Kennedy explained in invalidating the DTA — which provides wider access to Government evidence than the Geneva Convention – that

“the detainee’s ability to rebut the Government’s evidence is limited by the circumstances of his confinement and his lack of counsel at this stage.”

If you do not comprehend that the ACLU and its fellow revelers are preparing petitions in blank to seek — on behalf of every terrorist captured overseas — to compel the Government immediately to disclose its evidence, then you understand nothing.

Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his dissent what the Court is opening the door to:

“free access to classified information ignores the risk the prisoner may convey what he learns to parties hostile to this country, with deadly consequences for those who helped apprehend the detainee.”

Roberts noted that our troops are not equipped to handle subpoenas on the battlefield. Information given to defense lawyers in the first World Trade Towers trial on a restricted basis quickly appeared on al-Jazeera.

The alleged shoplifter at a suburban mall is entitled to see the prosecution’s file because she needs it to defend herself. The terrorist wants his file so he can arrange to slit the throats of intelligence operatives and informants. The Court’s decision undermines that result.

These are not theoretical dangers. In the United Kingdom, two dangerous terrorists are being released for lack of sufficient evidence to criminally prosecute them. An article titled “Abu Qatada: Terror chief next to be released on bail” by Security Correspondent Duncan Gardham illustrates what we have opened ourselves up to in this Supreme Court decision.

The release of terrorists known only as “U” and “Y” (in order to protect their oh-so-important privacy rights) due to lack of sufficient evidence reminds me of one of those cases of a terrified woman who is denied by the court of legal protection against a stalker due to lack of sufficient evidence until after he murders her.

President Abraham Lincoln famously suspended habeas corpus for two years during the Civil War.

In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln’s violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney’s ruling.

This Abraham Lincoln – regarded by many liberals and conservatives alike as the greatest American president ever – is the same Lincoln who disregarded the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. In issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and freeing the slaves, Lincoln in effect said to the Supreme Court, “You are wrong.”

The Supreme Court has been terribly wrong before, and it is terribly wrong now. Alas, we don’t have a Lincoln who will stand up against the moral stupidity of the Court today.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Which is a more legally-precise way of saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Liberals live in a world of theory, and whenever the facts conflict with their theory, they simply ignore the facts. It doesn’t matter how idiotic their ideas are; it doesn’t matter how disastrous are the consequences: it only matters that they have good intentions.

We have placed ourselves at a significant disadvantage voluntarily. For the last several years, Democrats repeatedly threatened to prosecute telecommunications companies that assisted the Bush Administration with information following 9/11. The Democrats recently caved in on the new FISA bill after a lengthy and determined campaign to hold telecommunications criminally responsible for their cooperation with their government. Don’t think for a second that these companies will ever be so willing to assist the United States again. We will be more blind in the future thanks to Democrats.

And now judicial liberals have issued this stunningly stupid and self-defeating ruling. And they’ve done this terrible thing with all the “beneficent purposes” that Justice Brandeis warned about. Our valuable and vital national security secrets will go to the terrorists who would kill us, even as we are forced to free more and more of them to fight again due to lack of sufficient evidence to stand up in a civilian court of law.

The fact that Barack Obama has cheered their verdict is another powerful proof that he should never be allowed to become our president. If elected, you can count on Barack Obama to appoint Justices and judges who will go even further in undermining our ability to defend and protect ourselves. A vote for Obama is a vote for baring the nation’s throat to those who would slash it in a nanosecond.