Category Archives: Barack Obama

Under HIS Direction

Barack Obama, Federalism, IMMIGRATION, Law, The Courts

“The Obama administration’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona offers a revealing window into the Holder Justice Department. And the picture isn’t pretty, ” writes Kris W. Kobach.

Consider what we learned when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first let the cat out of the bag and told us about it during an interview in Ecuador. Clinton showed who was sitting in the driver’s seat when it came to the Justice Department’s decision: “President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”
The key words here are “under his direction.” In other words, the White House is calling the shots. The same political calculations that drove Obama to criticize the Arizona law in April also drove the filing of the suit. While that is fine for policy decisions in other executive departments, the litigation decisions of the Justice Department are different. Past administrations — both Republican and Democratic — have taken care to insulate these decisions from political forces.
The reasons for doing so are obvious.
The decision to file civil charges or to file a civil lawsuit should be based purely on the strength of the legal case against the defendant, not on politics. And when it comes to the Arizona law, the federal government’s case is a weak one.

“When one considers the Arizona lawsuit in contrast to last year’s Justice Department decision to drop the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, the conclusion becomes inescapable. In the Black Panther case, the defendants had failed to answer the charges against them, and all the Department had to do was ask the judge for a default judgment. But the political appointees of the Holder Justice Department came in and ordered the career department attorneys to drop the case.

So the department dropped a slam-dunk case and yet files a suit that is half-court shot. Neither decision makes sense if the law is guiding the department’s litigation decisions. But both decisions make perfect sense if political calculations are foremost.”

[SNIP]

I’m appalled that other states have not stood up loudly for Jan Brewer who, while not the sharpest knife in the draw, is at least sharp enough to understand the importance of defending Arizonans against trespass, from within (the feds) and without (alien scofflaws and welfare consumers).

Has anyone heard what the Republican beauty queen Sarah Palin has to say about the Federal government’s frontal attack on Arizona? Where is Bachmann on the matter? Are republicans covering up for the terrible two’s relative silence on the topic?

UPDATE II: The Law Of Rule Doubles Down

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Energy, Free Speech, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

A member of the South African opposition (as I have already mentioned) characterized the effects of the ANC’s deployment of law as living under the law of rule rather than the rule of law. This characterization applies equally to Big Man Obama and his posse.

According to Fox News’ Megan Kelly, who does some fine reporting, the decree to dismiss the New-Black-Panther voter intimidation case originated with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Recall: the thugs who received a reprieve flanked the voting location in formation shouting variations on “kill crackers and their kids.”

A note to libertarians celebrating free speech and the beauty of an exhortation to kill in a “free society”: I’m sympathetic even to the last, believe it or not. But this is not about free speech. this is about a legal apparatus under which some are better than others. Don’t get me wrong: we’ve always lived under such an apparatus; my new book, Into The Cannibal’s Pot, (completed now and being prepared for publication), records this very reality. However, it has become manifestly obvious that things have gotten way worse (albeit on the same continuum) under the racial rule of Brother Barack.

To those interested in the law’s position on speech, here it is stated in one of my columns:

American jurisprudence allows the regulation of speech only under very limited circumstances. .. the jury would have had to find that … [the] speech posed a “Clear and Present Danger.” While the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t protect words that are likely to cause violence, the required threshold is extremely high. And so it should be.

However, speech that falls under the rubric of civil and voter rights law seems to get different treatment—when uttered against the pigmentally privileged.

UPDATE I: To prove this post’s point, the White House is threatening another lawsuit against Arizona. I believe it will try, this time, to make the racial profiling fiction stick. Is this an attempt to prosecute an infraction that has yet to occur? You see what I mean by the law of rule. As I write, coverage of this is hard to come by on the Net, so please do some digging.

UPDATE II: BHO will not abide by a “no you can’t!” The Law had ruled against the Rule in the matter of a moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling.

“[J]udge, Martin L. C. Feldman of United States District Court, issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a late May order halting all offshore exploratory drilling in more than 500 feet of water. A ‘blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium … with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,'” is how the judge justified smacking BHO. (Here is District Judge Feldman’s decision.)

But the law of rule wants an outcome of its own. And so, th “Obama Administration Issues New Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling.”

UPDATED: The Mark Of Cain (On Both BHO & Bush)

Barack Obama, Bush, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Sarah Palin, UN

Bush bears the Mark of Cain: He has been showered with profuse praise by Obama for the former president’s efforts on behalf of his people, Mexicans residing in the USA.

I have no doubt that Bush, who must be smiling like a Cheshire cat as he reads this, will strongly support BHO’s efforts to further sunder US sovereignty and welcome Mexico to the legal lynching underway against a state in the Union, Arizona. (See “Judge Lets Mexico Have Voice in Court Case Against U.S. Immigration Law.”)

After all, Bush was an avid supporter of international courts in their attempts to save a Mexican—rapist and murderer of American young girls—from a fate the great state of Texas dealt him with a vengeance. From “José Medellín’s Dead; Cue The Mariachi Band”:

The president had set a precedent in the case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. For defending their country, and in the process shooting a drug smuggler in the derriere, Bush sicced his bloodhound, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, on these Border Patrol Agents. With the same inverted morality, Bush rode to the rescue of another Mexican outlaw, Medellín; this time against the state he once governed. The president ordered Texas to heed the World Court. Texas said NO. The Supreme Court seconded Texas.

The likes of Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and their ilk—they’re all Bush and BHO compliant with respect to advocating “a ‘clear’ path to legalization for immigrants.” And they still reign supreme among the country’s philosopher kings.

Bush and his acolytes ought to give a shout-out back at Barack, for they certainly would approve of BHO’s code words for open borders: immigration reform, reform that brings accountability to our system, and so on.

UPDATED (July 3): How easy it is to get people drunk on the Demopublican KoolAid. The authorities remove South African illegals who’ve made lives for themselves in the US and send them back to the cauldron of racial violence whence they escaped. But because you’ve heard it repeated over and over again that Hispanics, a protected species, cannot be treated like they treat undesirables (South Africans, or one Romanian girl)—you buy the version the Roves and the Palins mouth: “you can’t remove illegals settled here.”

It’s a cycle. The system is set up to treat certain undesirables (read white south Africans) harshly; process them quickly; get them out of here with little noise. The same system succors the noisiest gang, Hispanics. All people like Huggs hear about—and he is vulnerable because of his great respect for GOPiers—is how impossible deportation or a program to bring about attrition is.

They deport white South Africans! They deport Polish 11-year-olds. They’re good at it—and becoming better. Thanks to cry babies who accept the arguments Rove throws at them, GARCIA, MARTINEZ, ALVAREZ, RODRIGUEZ, ROMERO, LOPEZ, FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ, GONZALES—they stay in the US of A. If your name is Ewelina Bledniak or Jan Pretorius; you’re gone. If my girl were Hispanic, she would not have lost her hard-earned green card on the border due to a technicality.

Remove all welfare grants, birthright citizenship for anchor babies; make clear that there is no path to citizenship. (Huggs, you know that granting illegal aliens political rights is delivering a voting bloc to the Democrats.) In your own dealings, choose local labor (my landscaper knows that only American boys are welcome on my property; it’s so much more pleasant too)—and watch what happens.

One woman’s utopia is another’s dystopia.

Obama To G-20: Print More Money, Don’t Make It

Barack Obama, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Europe, Federal Reserve Bank, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Political Economy

The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Obama To G-20: ‘Print More Money, Don’t Make It'”:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel is not returning U.S. President Barack Obama’s calls.

I’m being theatrical. Obama is demanding that Germany pull its weight in the global-recovery effort by aping the US: spending more and producing less.

Here are the providential orders verbatim, via the WSJ:

“U.S. President Barack Obama [has called] for Germans to aid the global recovery by spending more and relying less on exports.”

It is not only Germany that Obama wishes to knee-cap economically, but Canada, Japan and China too. Given that big-spending Americans exist at the sufferance of the frugal, productive Chinese, I don’t quite know how this would work.

“Ms. Merkel countered that Germany’s growth and employment are rising—and therefore the world’s fourth-largest economy has no reason to rethink its dependence on its powerhouse industrial sector and large trade surplus.” …

The Obamarxist-Merkel contretemps are a prelude to the upcoming “Group of 20” summit in Canada, where, by the looks of it, the US (once the economic engine of the world) will bicker with Germany, China, Canada, and Japan (nascent economic powers) to cut back on their robust exports and match its level of government and household debt. …

The complete column is “Obama To G-20: ‘Print More Money, Don’t Make It.'”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!