But since you allowed Obama ...

Natural Born Citizenship: Free and Clear The concept of natural born Citizenship is clear and concise, to anyone with a rational mind. Although some may wish to contort its meaning to fit the presidential candidate of their choice, natural law is incapable of such bias. It takes two parents to produce a child, one male and one female, but you would never know it if your source of information is the lamestream media. By its logic, only one parent is sufficient. I just ran across Larry Walker Jr.'s site, and this piece, although  written pre-election (2016)  smacks me as deliciously informative. Check it out.

Florida Democrat Brown ...

Corrupt (duh) Florida Democrat Faces 357 YEARS IN PRISON It Begins

Scalia Hearts Gorsuch

The only downside to Neil Gorsuch's SCOTUS nomination is he can't become Chief Justice.  Yet. SNIPS from "Chris Matthews: Dems who vote for Gorsuch “will have to answer” for it for 30 years." On MSNBC this evening, Chris Matthews cautioned Democratic Senators that if they vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, they will have to answer for it for the rest of their political career. His reasoning was a supremely political one: that at age 49, Gorsuch is likely to be on the Court for 30 years. And that any Dem voting to confirm him would have to answer, over all those years, for his decisions on controversial issues such as abortion and gun rights: “it will be on you,” warned Matthews. Note: Earlier, Matthews predicted that the Gorsuch nomination will fail because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not invoke the “nuclear option.” And since, according to Matthews, no Dems will vote to confirm, the nomination will fall short of the required 60 votes. This Insurrectionist disagrees. No matter how much McConnell reveres Senate tradition, he will not let such a qualified jurist, and Trump’s first Court nominee, go down to ignominious defeat. If push comes to shove, I predict that McConnell will invoke the nuclear option, and Gorsuch will be confirmed on a simple-majority vote. For a lawyer's view on Gorsuch, read this SCOTUSblog profile on Gorsuch. Some of his key legal positions are below * Second Amendment: He wrote in United States v. Games-Perez these rights "may not be infringed lightly." * Roe v. Wade: Gorsuch has never had the opportunity to write on Roe v. Wade. But, for any indication on how he would vote on abortions, the "right to privacy" defense from the dormant commerce clause is relevant, and he isn't buying it. This clause, known as "dormant" since it is not explicitly written out in the Constitution, indicates that since Congress regulates interstate commerce, states cannot pass legislation that unduly burdens or discriminates against other states and interstate commerce. * Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius: He distrusts efforts to remove religious expression from public spaces generally, but watch out for cases citing RFRA and RLUIPA — he ruled in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius that the contraception mandate in Obamacare placed an undue burden on the company's religious exercise and violated RFRA. * Capital punishment: Gorsuch is not friendly to requests for relief from death sentences through federal habeas corpus. * Criminal law: Gorsuch believes there is an overwhelming amount of legislation about criminal law, and believes that cases can be interpreted in favor of defendants even if it hurts the government. On mens rea — which means "guilty mind," or essentially the intent to commit a crime — Gorsuch is willing to read narrowly even if it means it doesn't favor the prosecution. * Checks and balances: Gorsuch does not like deferring to federal agencies when they interpret laws, so watch out for use of the Chevron rule, which allows federal agents to enforce laws in any way that is not expressly prohibited. Gorsuch may push back.

“Lock her up!”

... election high showing no sign of dissipating Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez could be in for chants of “Lock her up!” if she fails to comply with state and federal immigration laws. Travis County, which includes the city of Austin as its county seat, was catapulted into the national sanctuary city debate when the newly elected Hernandez announced last week that her department would no longer cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Following Hernandez’s declaration, Abbott swiftly announced that there would be dire consequences for Texas localities that disregard the law.  [FULL] Liberals desperately fight demoralization Trump Eases Deportation of Criminal Aliens (Ohio Ron) Hysterical Snowflake Calls Lab Coat KKK Meeting on Campus. Insanity! Sen. Warren Refuses to Disavow Madonna’s Wish to ‘Blow Up the White House’ MAJORITY OF MA VOTERS OPPOSE ELIZABETH WARREN REELECTION

DNC mocks law [DUH]

DNC mocks rule of law, showcases love affair with illegal immigration

Richard Cordray Cancer

Federal Courts Must Enforce Limits OnPresident's Appointment Powers “Judge Ellen Huvelle ruled in State National Bank of Big Springs v. Lew that Cordray, after finally receiving Senate confirmation, could simply wave a magic wand and retroactively approve all of his unauthorized acts. No one any longer contests that President Barack Obama acted in excess of his constitutional powers when, on January 4, 2012—a day on which the Senate was not in recess—he purported to grant a recess appointment to Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, in a troubling decision issued last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia indicated that it was of no moment that for a period of 18 months Cordray, although no more than a private citizen, issued dozens of significant decisions in the name of CFPB. Judge Ellen Huvelle ruled in State National Bank of Big Springs v. Lew that Cordray, after finally receiving Senate confirmation, could simply wave a magic wand and retroactively approve all of his unauthorized acts. That decision eviscerates the Constitution’s explicit limitations on the President’s appointment powers and encourages future Presidents to disregard those limitations. The Appointments Clause Violation President Obama attempted to make several recess appointments on January 4, 2012, including Cordray’s as well as several appointments to fill vacant slots on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Supreme Court disapproved President Obama’s efforts in NLRB v. Noel Canning, ruling unanimously that the recess appointments were unauthorized because the Senate remained in session on that date. So what to do about official actions taken by the improperly appointed officials? NLRB and CFPB adopted diametrically opposed approaches. NLRB carefully reconsidered each of its actions taken while the recess-appointed members were purporting to serve on its five-member board, and ultimately issued new decisions. In sharp contrast, CFPB’s Cordray simply rubber-stamped every action he took during the 18 months (from January 2012 to July 2013) that he improperly exercised authority.  [FULL] Treatment for Obama metastasis?  Chemo may leave traces, so cut it out with a machete.

Loretta Lynch;Worse than Holder

BLACK RACISTS

Loretta Lynch: White guilt forever; Muslim guilt never [....] Catherine Engelbrecht's take on Loretta Lynch's virulent anti-white words and interpretation of law is spot-on.  Loretta Lynch will not name ISIS for the same reason she did not name or prosecute any of the criminals from the riots in Ferguson or Baltimore.  She redacted the word "Islamic" – and any intimation of it – from the murderer's own words for the same reason black-on-black crime will always be caused by lax gun laws.  It's so simple: white guilt forever; black guilt, Mexican guilt, Moslem guilt never.  [FULL]

Traffic Stop Searches

Police State USA A lawyer in Florida has come up with an ingenious way for drivers to evade drunken-driving checkpoints Cute, but I'm afraid we're nearly to the point, according to Obama law, where the police may simply smash your window and beat you about the head.

Punks Punking

a major award

“ UCLA law professor learns Ferguson-related exam question taboo [...] Professor Robert Goldstein said the exam question was designed to test students’ ability to analyze the line between free speech and inciting violence. It cited a report about how Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, shouted, “Burn this bitch down!” after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown. The question then asked students to imagine that they are lawyers in the St. Louis County Attorney’s office and had been asked to advise the prosecutor “whether to seek an indictment against Head” for inciting violence. The exam reads: “[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution. Write the memo.” But students complained, and writer Elie Mystal at the popular legal blog “Above the Law” opined that the test question was “racially insensitive and divisive.” Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.” Goldstein has apologized for putting the question on the test and has promised not to grade the question. [...] Shame on Goldstein.  Shame on his students. Shame on UCLA.  Shame on a culture that finds this in the least bit acceptable.  ”

Sheriff Clarke doesn't mince words

“ Sheriff Clarke doesn't mince words. Ever. Including on Ferguson. And Democrats Milwaukee County Sheriff  David Clarke tells it like it is. He’s a stellar reminder of what true leadership looks like and what it means to uphold the rule of law. It is a relief to hear someone speak with such honesty and candor. To give you a taste of how fearlessly this man puts truth on display, here are two videos of Sherriff Clarke speaking about Ferguson. Below is a quote from a speech he gave at the National Press Club (video above) a couple of weeks ago: … I’m known for not sugar coating things. This pissed me off … I sat up there and listened to Eric Holder throw law enforcement officers under the bus for political expediency…. His densely packed 6-minute speech is worth a listen, as is his recent interview with Neil Cavuto. I’ve transcribed a few gems for AT readers, but hope you’ll take the time to listen to this man. I can only hope and pray he is the voice of our future because, Lord knows, this is the kind of leadership and vision we desperately need. On Al Sharpton: ... Anytime Al Sharpton shows up on the scene, nothing good is going to come of that. On Barack Obama: … I heard some of the president’s comments last night. And he said that what we need to do is try to understand them and he said that the anger was an understandable reaction. And I was just floored by that because it’s not an understandable reaction. People have to come up with a more socially acceptable way to deal with anger and frustration. This is totally and unequivocally intolerable …. … when I heard the president call for calm after the rioting started, I questioned his sincerity because some of his political strategy of divide and conquer fuels this sort of racial animosity between people. And so I think when he called for calm after the rioting started I believe it was done with a wink and a nod. On Jay Nixon: … I think Governor Nixon is trying to soft shoe this thing. I don’t think he has the intestinal fortitude to deal with this. What’s happening down there right now is real ugly and the response isn’t going to be pleasing to the eye with what law enforcement and the national guard have to do. But, Neil, I mean come on. They have to restore order and the law enforcement officers and the national guard have to use all reasonable force to get that under control. Restraint is not an option right now for law enforcement .… There’s always going to be people on the sideline that are going to second guess you. That’s part of what Governor Nixon has to deal with. It’s something that I have to deal with when I have to make tough decisions. He has to block that out and do what’s in the best interest of Ferguson, Missouri, and the state of Missouri and he has to get this thing under control and not worry about the optics so much. You know, nobody’s saying all due force or any force. What I’m calling for is all reasonable force to get this thing under control. And you’re going to be criticized. And he’s afraid to be criticized and he’s worried about what people might say in second guessing him? Then he’s in the wrong position. On Eric Holder: … Eric Holder is one of those that was in a very visible position to have talked reasonably and to kind of quell this thing early on and instead he engaged with inflammatory rhetoric. So for him to come on and announce what he’s going to today. You know, look, justice is about due process. You’re not guaranteed a result. You’re guaranteed due process. Due process played it out at the state level. If he wants to start a federal probe he’s entitled to do that, but that’s just going to prolong this thing and unless he thinks or he believes that there’s something nefarious that went on here with the Grand Jury investigation, I think he ought to reconsider that … For Eric Holder to come in I think it just continues to prolong this thing and fan the flames. And let’s say he comes out with some indictment of his own and  it’s thrown out at the federal level, because in the end I don’t see a judge in this country upon appeal that would uphold any kind of conviction here against the officer. And then we may have to relive this all over again. Read more: David Clarke is atop my wish list for AG after Obama is out.  And it's not entirely a specious thought.  I would vote for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in a heartbeat in 2016.  It's not that big a leap to see him tag the head of Wisconsin's largest sheriff's dept. to restore order in the DOJ, is it?  ”

Do we take this lying down?

Illegal Invaders

HOME INVASION & YOUR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE A conversation worth having, in the absence of law enforcement Self-Defense Overview It is a universally accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime.  Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence.  This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations.  For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself?  As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat.  The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Castle Doctrine Even in states that require a person to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their home.  This rule, also known as “the castle doctrine,” allows people to defend their homes against intruder through lethal force. (source Find Law) Closer to home: Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland   The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.(Duh)

no BECK AND no CALL

“

It's time to protect workers from forced political contributions blah-blah-blah. How would you react if your employer informed you he would be taking a modest cut from your paycheck each month for his political action committee? What if he told you that if you try to opt out of this arrangement he'd hassle you and might fight you all the way to the Supreme Court? Did you know that labor unions already do this? And for the most part, they have been getting away with it. That's why it's heartening to see a new report, from the Washington Examiner's Sean Higgins, that Republicans plan to take up federal labor law if they win the Senate in next month's elections. Legal precedent has for three decades supposedly guaranteed the First Amendment rights of nonunion workers — who are nonetheless required to pay dues — to avoid subsidizing Big Labor's political drives. But Knox v. SEIU, which ended in a 2012 Supreme Court decision, demonstrates how this guarantee often fails in practice. In 2005, SEIU abruptly raised its dues for the California public employees it represented for the explicit purpose of creating a $12 million campaign fund to defeat two state ballot measures. The union offered no opportunity for workers to opt out of contributing, unless they sought a refund the following year. It took the better part of a decade for the public employees who sued the union to have their First Amendment freedom of association vindicated. At one stage, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tried to invalidate their rights altogether in favor of a supposed union right to collect their money. Republicans now want to fix this gross injustice by means of an Employee Rights Act if they take control of the Senate. The bill would require unions to get members' affirmative permission to use their money for political activity. Workers who support union political drives could still contribute, but workers who want union representation, or who have been forced to accept it against their will, would be protected from funding causes they dislike. The bill would also force unions to show their members how their money is being spent. Most political expenditures go under the radar and are reported only long after elections are over, and even then only in opaque annual filings with the Department of Labor. When the Wall Street Journal scrutinized these reports in 2012, it found union political spending to be about four times greater than what was then believed. Democrats in Washington have made a fuss recently about big money and so-called dark money in elections. Last month, 49 Democratic senators actually voted to weaken the First Amendment to halt the supposedly corrupting influence of money on politics. Yes, they would actually amend the Bill of Rights to blunt the influence of private donors who don't share their views. One might take their bleating seriously on this matter if they first acknowledged the egregious wrong of forcing workers to fund political spending out of their paychecks. I posted every word of that Examiner story, so you will easily see that "Beck"  in not mentioned al all.  WTF?  Nada.  The landmark 1988 Beck decision, in a nutshell, forced unions to get specific authorization from each member before they could spend their portion of dues on political activities.  It also stipulated that notices to that effect be placed in the work place so all members were aware of that right.  By the by, that decison was made by  some of the most liberal judges in the courts history.  To wit: BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE, THURGOOD MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which HARRY  BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part [source] Needless to say, unions were none too happy.  So, they did what liberals always do with court decisions and law they don't like.  They ignored it, and nobody did anything about it. Here's the beginning of a post I made in 2006 about the continued noncomplience of unions.  Nothing has changed. Shakespeare kept a copy of Nostradamus at his bedside, which probably accounts for the passage, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers turned judge by Carter and Clinton." That's the famous passage as it appeared in the draft manuscript of King Henry VI. The Bard, however, feared that high school students would be put off by so enigmatic a reference, so it was altered. Too bad. Nearly a 20 years ago the U. S. Supreme Court established what are now known as "Beck rights" in the landmark decision Communication Workers v. Beck.1 Beck rights dictate that workers cannot be forced under union contracts to pay any dues or fees beyond those necessary for the performance of the union's employee representation duties.¹. To that end, employers were supposed to post notices so employees would be made aware, and know where they could report violations [Etc].

”

DC GUN CONTROL CAVE, and an imposter

“

D.C. Gun control funding restored to Congressional spending bill The U.S. House this week removed a provision approved earlier this year that would have blocked funding for Washington, D.C.’s strict gun laws. The amendment, originally passed by a voice vote in the Republican-controlled chamber in July, was proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to H.R.5016, a House appropriations act that funds the District in 2015. However, Republican lawmakers introduced a ‘clean’ bill to Capitol Hill late Tuesday without the rider prohibiting funding for gun control measures. “Yesterday’s victory was an important step in our efforts to protect the District’s right to self-government,” the District’s nonvoting Democratic Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton said in a statement Wednesday, taking credit for the win in knocking off riders to the continuing resolution which not only included Massie’s funding cut for gun control measures but also one forbidding D.C. from spending money on a legal marijuana program. TWO THINGS: 1) Re: the vote by a Republican controlled House - Do I have to say it?  I thought not. 2) EHN has no more right to a seat in congress than does a Guadalajaran prostitute.  She lives in the District of Columbia, which was expressly denied the right of representation by the United States Constitution.  So, what do Democrats do when the Rule of Law gets in their way?  They make shit up. She is "an elected" MOC; on the payroll; has the right to  speak on the House floor; she can serve on committees, and she can sponsor legislation.  She just cannot vote on stuff.  Whoop-de-do.  Here's some recent Eleanor Holmes Norton, via Dumbocrat Quotes Appearing on MSNBC, Eleanor Holmes Norton tried to fan the flames on the Ferguson racial riots. “Hey, black community! You see what happens when you don't have your own elected officials out there, people who have had experiences similar to your own. I don't understand that. Again, there may be something about the way the elections are conducted in that county. But if I were in that community, the first thing I would be doing is organize voters to go to the polls in November.” Eleanor Holmes Norton, August 19, 2014 Speaking in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton claimed Americans do not have the right to know what's going on in the White House. “You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government.” Eleanor Holmes Norton, July 25, 2014  Speaking in the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton claimed the Iraq war was more catastrophic than World War I, World War II, and Vietnam. “And of course in Iraq, clearly one of the unintended consequences surely would have been renewed conflict between the Sunni and Shia, and yet we went in, we went in headfirst, perhaps the most catastrophic war of the 20th century invasion by the United States of America.” Eleanor Holmes Norton, May 1, 2014  Res ipsa loquitur

”

These people are beyond trying to deal with in a civil manner

Dinesh D’Souza Prosecutor Accused Of Failing To Enforce Anti-Discrimination Court Order

The Obama donor prosecuting conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza is being accused of “fostering disrespect for the rule of law” for allegedly failing to enforce a housing desegregation ruling.

Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is an Obama donor and prospective Attorney General in a Hillary Clinton administration. But his career ambitions might face some opposition from the left. (RELATED: What You Need to Know About The Obama DonorProsecuting Dinesh D’Souza)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/08/dinesh-dsouza-prosecutor

I. Am. In. A. Murderous. Rage. Over. This.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

Among the 36,000 immigrants whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released from custody last year there were 116 with convictions for homicide, 43 for negligent manslaughter, 14 for voluntary manslaughter and one with a conviction classified by ICE as “homicide-willful kill-public official-gun.”

Illegal Preference

Mexican Invaders Point “ Chicago Announces Illegal Alien Children Given Preference in Jobs, Internships In a preview of what amnesty holds in store for the rest of America’s middle class and lower income workers, Chicago is putting illegal immigrants in the job pool ahead of many citizen students who would also like to have the opportunity. “DREAMers and DACA recipients are assets that we need to nurture and develop like precious natural resources for the benefit of the entire community. They are an integral part of Chicago’s workforce of tomorrow. Once again, the City of Chicago and Mayor Rahm Emanuel are leading the way on the inclusion of our immigrant communities.” - Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) In much the same way they or their parents were rewarded for violating American immigration law and given preference over those who lined up to immigrate legally, Chicago is offering internships, volunteer and job opportunities to illegal alien “dreamers.” In “justifying” the discrimination against American citizens, Mayor Emanuel said, “Chicago is a city that was built by immigrants and I am committed to ensuring that DREAMers have the same opportunities offered by the City to all of Chicago’s youth. We will open our doors to support talented young people who are committed to their education, building their job skills, and bettering their communities.” Counter Point: “China is trying to become America without democracy while America is trying to become France without cheese calories.” P. J. O'Rourke ”

The Contemptuous Mr. Holder

Holder's Mustache

What a Knockout

Thugnation                      Knockout Game “ Like the "Fight Game," except only one person knows he's participating Ever so slowly, reporters are starting to figure out a version of black mob violence called the Knockout Game. The first chip in the wall fell in New York, where Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said last week that Orthodox Jews in Crown Heights were the victims of eight episodes of mob violence and vandalism. He did not see a pattern. But the New York Post did, reporting: “The way the game is played, one of a number of young blacks decides to show that he can knock down some stranger on the streets, preferably with one punch, as they pass by. Often, some other member of the group records the event so that a video of that ‘achievement’ is put on the Internet to be celebrated.” The violence, caught on video, was so egregious even the CBS affiliate in New York had trouble ignoring it. The station reported that Rabbi Yaacov Behrman said “he believes the assaults are part of a disturbing game by some African-American teens.” The same station, however, reported on the Knockout Game in Hoboken just a few days before without mentioning the central organizing feature of the violence: The race of the perpetrators. In Washington, D.C., the CBS affiliate reported this week that at least two people were recent victims of the Knockout Game. But the station got it wrong on two counts. One was of omission: It did not mention that everyone involved in committing the Knockout Game is .... [Full] It's the Obama culture, and there is no cure that will not in my opinion trigger the very race riots that Obama needs in order to go into full lock down mode (AKA martial law.  What?  You thought the billion rounds of ammo Nappy bought were for an anticipated invasion by Canada?) But Rodge, we need some catharis now! OK WASHINGTON — Former Reagan Justice Department lawyer Larry Klayman hopes the 19th of November will rank with the 4th of July, someday. He called the day the beginning of “The Second American Revolution.” ”