Taking cover, the American Treason Class, with Hillary Clinton at the helm, made the announcement from Ecuador: “The Justice Department, under [Obama’s] direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act” [Arizona immigration-enforcement law, SB 1070].
UPDATE (June 20): “Our federal government should be using its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the law-abiding citizens of Arizona,” said Gov. Jan Brewer.
Brewer “refused to flinch after Obama administration officials confirmed Friday that they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the state’s anti-illegal immigration law.
In a statement issued late Friday, Brewer called Obama’s decision ‘outrageous’ but ‘not surprising.'”
Rep. Joe Barton is being raked him over the coals by the Media-Congressional complex, his Republican colleagues included, for telling the truth: Big “O” muscled PB into handing over private property without due process—in contravention of “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and all that stuff.
Not only is this unconstitutional; it is also immoral. It further entrenches the shakedown ethos, and the perception that private property works and breathes at the pleasure of the politicos. This is a slush fund, a piece of which everyone along the Gulf will be clamoring for, presumably without the hassles of proving they have been harmed by the spill.
None of what I’ve said will strike those of you who respect private property and due process, including the neglected, necessary, legal imperative of mens rea, as particularly original.
The real newsworthy point to take away from this is how uncommitted Republicans are to these bedrock principles.
UPDATE II: O’REILLY & O’BAMA SITTING IN A TREE… Bill O’Reilly is consistent here. Never before has he deferred to the limits the constitutional scheme imposes on central power, and he does not now break with that commitment to an overweening central government. (Obama should cut O’Reilly some slack and give him that prestigious interview he craves. O’Reilly is his friend.)
But Bachmann backpedals and disappoints. O’Reilly declares he is okay with Obama bringing down on BP the full force of the federal government; MB, who rightly objected, now meekly agrees. Sort of. She ought to have stuck to her guns in noting the usurpation of power and the violation of due process of which she previously warned.
“Prosecutorial power to bring charges against a person is an awesome power, stress Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Backing him, the prosecutor has the might of the state, and must never ‘override the rights of the defendant in order to gain a conviction.’
Prosecutorial duties are dual. While acting as the plaintiff, the prosecutor must also take pains to protect the defendant’s rights.”
O’Reilly is like a Benthamite bureaucrat; he’s no truth seeker.
Since the GOP went out of business, Mark Levin has begun to speak truth to power (and phony populism). VIA The Right Scoop:
UPDATE III (June 20): So you still think the “GOP, RIP” can be reformed?
Rep. Jo Bonner called on fellow Republican Rep. Joe Barton to step down as ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Friday following the Texas Republican’s controversial statements to BP chairman Tony Hayward on Thursday.
“Earlier this morning, Rep. Barton called me to offer his personal apologies for any harm that his comments might have caused,” said Bonner, whose district covers much of Alabama’s coastline.
“It takes a big person to admit they were wrong and I appreciated Joe’s call,” Bonner continued. “However, as I told him, I believe the damage of his comments are beyond repair and, as such, I am today calling on Joe to do the right thing for our conference and immediately step aside as Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.”
“Joe’s comments were stupid and extremely insensitive to the hundreds of thousands of people who live along the Gulf Coast,” Bonner added.
The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”:
“‘Call me jaded or unsentimental,’ wrote one of my readers, ‘but the World Trade Towers were ugly Rockefeller buildings built by the abuse of eminent domain (my friend’s dad lost his job at a private firm there) and taxpayer theft and operated at a great loss to the taxpayers. They were known mainly for a dreadful remake of King Kong. While I mourn the loss of 3,000 Americans, I am not about to elevate the Towers into the Beit Hamikdash (The Temple in Jerusalem).'”
“My unorthodox patron was responding to news that the American Society for Muslim Advancement (quite literally) plans to erect a ‘Mega-Mosque’ at Ground Zero. The advancing Muslims say this is a peace offering – a center intended to foster Muslim tolerance and temperance. Most Americans, well-represented by the energetic crowds that pitched up to protest this affront, don’t believe them. (Taqiyya anyone?)”
Neither do I. To count as a peacemaking offering, the ‘Sulcha’ must be considered conciliatory by those it is intended to pacify. …
Less clear, however, is the course of action protesters intend to pursue. Defeat this act of domination, and the invasive species will take root elsewhere. Yet, restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained. As far as I can tell, then, all anti-mega-mosque activists are requesting is kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors.
The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”:
“‘Call me jaded or unsentimental,’ wrote one of my readers, ‘but the World Trade Towers were ugly Rockefeller buildings built by the abuse of eminent domain (my friend’s dad lost his job at a private firm there) and taxpayer theft and operated at a great loss to the taxpayers. They were known mainly for a dreadful remake of King Kong. While I mourn the loss of 3,000 Americans, I am not about to elevate the Towers into the Beit Hamikdash (The Temple in Jerusalem).'”
“My unorthodox patron was responding to news that the American Society for Muslim Advancement (quite literally) plans to erect a ‘Mega-Mosque’ at Ground Zero. The advancing Muslims say this is a peace offering – a center intended to foster Muslim tolerance and temperance. Most Americans, well-represented by the energetic crowds that pitched up to protest this affront, don’t believe them. (Taqiyya anyone?)”
Neither do I. To count as a peacemaking offering, the ‘Sulcha’ must be considered conciliatory by those it is intended to pacify. …
Less clear, however, is the course of action protesters intend to pursue. Defeat this act of domination, and the invasive species will take root elsewhere. Yet, restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained. As far as I can tell, then, all anti-mega-mosque activists are requesting is kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors.