2012 Run for the Political Roses

Although not a mainstream television watcher since pay television was mandated by Congressional decree throughout America, I have unfortunately been recently residing with relatives that unfortunately have become rather homebound in their declining years, and on and off been subject to some of the political entertainment shows carried on pay TV. Unfortunately also, it has affected somewhat my elderly relatives grasp of reality since this really is there primary contact with the real world.

Of course, those shows and all those crime dramas and unreal "reality" shows that are fed to the American public as a steady diet.

There have been so many debates at this point by the Republicans it seems there should have been a new reality series scheduled by the networks entitled "The Presidential GOP Debates: Run for the Roses," limiting them to 13 weeks. My eyes glazed over after the first one.

I spent my time during the second one imagining alternative occupations for those "candidates" after they leave office, if they ever do before retirement age. Few, I'm sure, will but here's what I came up with...

Mitt Romney - Used car salesman or croupier in Vegas

Newt Gingrich - Pilsbury doughboy stand-in or the new face on Monopoly for Mr. Moneybags, the banker. (Or Hallmark Card writer).

Rick Perry - Howdy Doody's new partner or calf roper and bull rider.

Michelle Bachman - New face for Oil of Olay or Cruise Line Director

Ron Paul - He's already an obstetrician and that fits, or Santa Claus (with padding)

As far as the other political party, we all know what Mr. Obama's true calling is: Motivational speaker or union organizer. I think most Americans know by now he is not nor was a Constitutional lawyer.

While all these people are traversing the country, spouting their political ideology, I wonder...just how did our political system get so very, very profitable for the cable entertainment news networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX) and those candidates?

I mean, just how many staff members and assorted individuals affiliated with these continous elections can now list on their job resume "political strategist?"

I mean, do they give degrees in that now too?

Our elections are becoming mirror images of last week's finale of Survivor.

He who wins the game, wins the coveted rose.

Come hook or crook.

Al Sharpton: Get Educated On Border Issues And Off The Soapbox

The "Don King" of race relations strikes again.

Recently there appeared an article indicating that Al Sharpton has now visited Phoenix to take on the "baddest Sheriff in the West" in my former home state of Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Interesting that two press hounds such as Al Sharpton and Sheriff Joe are now being engaged in an "Al and Joe" show for the locals in Arizona, and also now moving it to the federal stage.

Sheriff Joe, of course, is now under investigation by the Senate Judiciary for his alleged "profiling" done in some of his barricades conducted throughout the City of Phoenix, in which I lived for over 45 years on his "immigration sweeps."

The charges, of course, were politically brought by Phil Gordon, Mayor of Phoenix and assisted, of course, by Ms. Napolitano, my former governor who is behind the "right wing extremist" memorandums and Fusion Centers training local law enforcement in jack boot citizen surveillance tactics, and strip searches at the domestic airports. After, of course, making Arizona a "sanctuary state," while attempting to appear to be addressing the situation by calling out the National Guard, and then disempowering them in the process.

Which now, of course, two years later has resulted in the deaths of many Arizonans due to the spillover of the drug cartel wars going on in the border towns, and increases in gang related drug and property thefts in metropolitan Tucson and Phoenix, and is a contributory factor for many now in Arizona which are losing their homes and jobs right and left, of course left out of the media spins on the foreclosure mess. Arizona is second or third, depending on the month, in the amount of home foreclosures.

Property and auto insurance rates, especially in Phoenix and Tucson, are becoming off the charts due to this federal negligence, and affecting the general population living in the border states in increasing numbers by the year in their inability to afford comprehensive coverage anymore. Of course, the Mexican drivers along with the tourists are responsible for a good number of the auto and truly drunk driving deaths also in the metro area, while the police focus on the sports bar crowds primariy for those federal grant monies for their patrols, and the lease payments for jails they sold several years back to private industries without the public's general knowledge.

The hypocricy is actually quite incredible.

Statistically, the majority of the crimes committed against the lawful citizens actually are committed by the border hoppers, who are Mexican nationals and not U.S. citizens. The ACLU, of course, through the courts for their profit also have gained "more than equal" or "privileges and immunity" now for illegal foreigners committing criminal acts above those that were actually intended to protect the citizens from foreign "attacks" and criminal activity under our Constitution, even though it clearly states: "We the People of the United States...for US and our posterity."

Mexico has a policy of shooting on sight many South Americans intent on criminal activity who are within their borders, and deports or incarcerates immediately any that cannot produce adequate identification or documentation at the local level under their Constitution. In fact, so much as minor traffic violations can be settled with the arresting officers in payment of their "fines," unless it appears more can be gained politically and financially in incarcerating foreigners charged with even misdemeanor violations in that country.

Most of Sheriff Joe's raids actually have been for no more than publicity, sort of like Al Sharpton's agenda. Since the majority of employers which hire those illegals have hardly been Sheriff's Joe's targets - the developers, construction companies, chain car washes, resort and hotel industries and the like. Nor the cartel members or large drug dealers, more the petty criminal "employee" drug users of some of those cartels and the kids who have become addicted due to the target market for their wares. Or trumped up traffic violations and busted tailights for the self-employed gardeners or car wash employees, although they, too, have victimized the community. My identity theft and stolen credit card happened at a locally owned car wash known for hiring them since all of them do.

Instead, he busted a putt putt course using more than nine Sheriff's deputies to arrest five claimed "illegals." For show.

You see, most of those big and small businesses contribute to civic organizations that support the Sheriff's Office and local police departments. A "politically correct" way to insure protection from any and all police action under the employer sanctions laws passed by the lawful citizens in Arizona several years ago. So the major employers are not the targets of Sheriff Joe's possee. Those which have been undertaken have been no more than publicity stunts.

However, both Phil Gordon and Ms. Napolitano actually were just as negligent in their giving protecton to the criminal element through their continued negligence in pressing the state legislature to petition the federal government or file a federal lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona if necessary under the U.S. Constitution "common defense" provisions in getting the monies in order to fund the needed fencing to stop the flow, and the border hopping drug dealers, car thieves and gang members.

Few Arizonans realize that those HB-1 visas and such are actually requested by the state legislature in Arizona by petition each and every year. And most of those state legislators that paint the anti-illegal or reduced visas for foreigner faces, are the ones who request the most for their Chamber of Commerce friends and backers.

Surely, there is plenty of money to initiated the federal lawsuit needed, and the feds have more than enough to complete that fencing adequately.

They just gave 100 million to the Chamber of Commerce in order to "educate" the public on why their free global markets are much more important than the public's safety and security, and major reason we have a federal government to begin with - to protect this country from foreign attack and invasion.

Not the "jobs and economies" of corporate America.

The federal government truly has lost its way in what its true function actually is, and priorities for expenditure of public sums or incurring public debt.

So, for that matter, has every single level of government apparently.

Cally-for-nia is a prime example, many of whose former residents are now wrecking havoc in Arizona and bringing it to its knees with their political agendas, developers and demands, not realizing that Arizona is not beach front property but a desert, and their expectations and liberal agendas are what screwed up their former home state to the degree it is.

Sharpton getting involved and painting this as a "racial" issue truly does take the cake, although Sheriff Joe under the true law has been out of line in his enforcement tactics by targeting and setting up his barricades and patrols within city limits, rather than county boundaries - which would be his lawful jurisdiction for such actions. Preventing any and all foreigners without visas or green cards from crossing county lines is well within his jurisdiction and authority.

And then, instead of incarcerating them in his "cruel and unusual" punishment tent city jail - in which there have been numerous deaths which have cost the state citizens a bundle and for which the prisoners are now actually charged by Joe for their own incarcerations in that hell hole - turning them over to the U.S. Marshall's office for processing and deportation. As "illegals" there is no inherent right to deportation hearings, and this was the process that was done and was effective and reduced the border problem significantly when I was growing up in Arizona during the 60's and 70's.

The criminal and immigration attorneys, however, wanted their cut of the drug monies seized, and so petitioned for "civil rights" now for foreigners under our Constitution, and which the U.S. Supreme Court again now has inserted another party into it - Non-Americans (foreigners), when those fundamental protections were the "carrot" in order for foreigners who came to this country to forswear their allegiance to their former home countries, and truly become Americans.

Look forward to the Al and Joe roadshow.

Coming to a media outlet near you, while Arizonans and border residents continue to be made the victims of this political and governmental treason.

Sonia Sotomayor: The Court Makes Policy?

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become. And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.

Presidential Executive Orders

During the last presidential administration the powers of the Executive Office under former President Bush were expanded at a rate that is unsurpassed in the history of this nation. The President liberally used such methods as both "signing statements" and "executive orders" in order to both dilute the powers of Congress, and expand the duties and powers of the presidency outside Constitutional provision and authority.

The problems which such measures present should be clear to every American. It undermines and is a blatant disregard for our Constitution and also our intended representative government. The fact that those on Capitol Hill in the Halls of Congress cannot put aside their partisan political backbiting to challenge and dilute this presidential usurpation is simply nothing short of treason on the part of those claimed representatives.

There was a political challenge made at one point which made it's way to our Halls of Justice, the U.S. Supreme Court. In a divided opinion, the Court actually amended the Constitution in it's ruling in order to hold with the President. The Court also holds no power under the Constitution whatsoever to "make law," simply review any and all legislation for Constitutionality. The fact that such a power move by the President was not within the proscribed presidential powers was clear and not supported by the "evidence," our Constitution and it's clear language.

It does seem that the old addage "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," appears to be holding true once again. And Mr. Obama is clearly on track at this point as one who's views of his presidential powers more align with his predecessor, than our Constitution.

The President actually has only two proscribed duties within the Constitution. One is as the last "check" in the "checks and balances," for Constitutionality of any legislation placed before him. The other is as Commander in Chief of the military in times of declared war.

Congress was to have the true power in Washington with respect to governance in their enumerated powers and duties, which far exceed that of the presidency.

In their negligence to enact the needed legislation in order to clarify the limited powers of the presidency and bring it back into Constitutional alignment, it does appear that cronism, "political correctness" and the new buzzword, "bipartisanship" is simply a way for those on the Hill to continue to "misrepresent" their constituents, the people of this great nation.

The Office of the Presidency

"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
~James Madison


It continues to astound me how the progressive movement in this country (the ones who are progressing it toward global socialism, whose members span both sides of the aisle) have such a basic aversion to now the mere word "conservative" after the travesties of the Bush Administration. In point of fact, according to the founder's ex-President Bush was anything but a "conservative" in the true sense of the word.

A "conservative" merely is one who believes in "conserving" the Constitution as it is written, with the intent and purpose for each provision in mind according to their writings, and within a framework of a knowledge of basic American history. To a "conservative American" the Constitution is nothing more than a contract between the federal and state governments, and it's people. According to the common law at then and now according to legal doctrine, a contract is to be interpreted according to the "common usage" language contained within it, until the contract is amended by the agreement of all parties to the contract as outlined within the contract itself.

It is interesting to note that the "progressive movement" in this country consider the Constitution "archaic," and not suitable to the times in which we live, nor the added dangers which we face in the 21st Century.

I would have to disagree with that analysis. In point of fact, the founder's actually faced far more dangers, with far fewer resources than we have today. Those small 13 colonies had an entire Eastern Seaboard to protect and defend, with nothing but canons and musket. There was no running water, or toilets to speak of , so faced numerous diseases and ecological problems that we can only imagine. Although trials were held relatively quickly in the cities for criminal offenses (the "due process" and "speedy trial" provisions, since rooting out truth was better served if justice was handed out swiftly for all), the offenders charged with capital offenses remained in jail until trial, by and large. There was no DNA testing then nor plea bargains, and due to the harshness of the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt meant clear physical evidence, untainted by the media exposure some of today's high profile crimes receive which has resulted in higher costs due to tainted jury pools) few "political" convictions were made.

The judiciary used the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority, and gave secondary consideration to "judge made law," from other states or jurisdictions. Cases did not continue for year upon year, and since all cases in civil and criminal law in which there was a clear victim were heard by juries, one appeal usually was all that was granted in the event new evidence unheard by the jury was discovered.

The laws which were passed by Congress and signed by the President consisted of few pages, and all were well versed in our Constitution and their oaths of office to it -an oath that also supersedes the "will" of even the majority of the citizenry those 535 members felt any legislation was in violation of it. The Supreme Court was the "court of last resort" for all civil matters involving the citizenry on Constitutional issues, and were not given any real power with respect to "making law," simply "interpreting the Law" using the common usage language within it.

Marbury v. Madison is the case in which the judiciary then violated the Constitution in giving themselves more power to than it was ever intended to have. "Judicial review" of legislation then became the ultimate test for application and Constitutional of state or federal legislation, and the powers of the juries have progressively been eradicated ever since. The most basic problem as has been the assumption that Supreme Court rulings carry "precedent" throughout the states, when the Supreme's were merely intended to have limited juridiction over certain issues, and appellate jurisdiction over others, and their "findings" actually only applicable to the "case at bar," or according to the actual facts in the case before it.

Thus, the "liberal" movement was born within a few short years of it's signing. To be a "liberal" actually meant that the Constitution was a "living" document and the language could be twisted, turned and redefined for political purposes or public opinion. Throughout our remaining history, there have been exceptional Judges on the Supreme Court who actually understood exactly why those checks and balances were written the way that they were, but they have been few and far between.

Barack Obama took an oath not once but twice which states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The provisions, duties and limits on the Office of the Presidency can be found in Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4 which state:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the Bush Administration had a well reported aversion to the Constitution and all it stood for and the limits of office contained within it, he may have ran on one or two conservative issues, but was fundamentally a liberal and globalist subscribing to the U.N. and it's governance clearly more than our own. Mr. Obama ran as an agent for "change" and as a Harvard educated "Constitutional lawyer." Granted, Harvard is a well known liberal institution of higher learning, especially with respect to the law and our Constitution, more along the lines of Oxford in England (the country which we fought a war to escape their form of government, although several of our Supreme Court justices obtained their educations outside the U.S.).

The President is supposed to be ready on Day One with at least a fundamental knowledge of the limits of his office, and his oath to "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Somehow, knowing that the future President was a Constitutional lawyer, I had hoped that the "change" Mr. Obama represented would be a "change" in the fundamental way he approached his role and with a better understanding of the allegiance he owed in the execution of his duties.

Unfortunately I, and many other Constitution believing Americans, were gravely disappointed. It does appear that now that this spending package has unconstitutionally been signed into law, Harvard should be one of the first to receive some of that debt so that maybe, just maybe, our children will get some benefit out of this travesty, along with the debt.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii

The Myth of Executive Privilege

It been interesting to continue to read and hear the propaganda again being spewed in the interviews that have been given by Karl Rove (the "Architect") in his refusal to submit to a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee in order to answer some questions with respect to his performance in the Bush Administration.

Mr. Rove has been credited with being the architect of Mr. Bush's rise to the presidency, sort of a private marketing and PR agent. After leaving the employ of the White House, he has since been snared by Rupert Murdoch as a Fox News Analyst in order to work his architectural magic and PR skills for Fox now on the American people in a much greater forum with a little longer sound bites as an "expert" for the national news media.

An expert in what I haven't a clue, since the Bush Administration has been the most unpopular in my memory, far surpassing that other erstwhile Republican(?), Richard Nixon.

Search and search as I may within our U.S. Constitution nowhere does it indicate that there is such an animal as 'Executive Privilege," nor "sovereign immunity" (that was the British invention that caused the Revolution to begin with - the sovereign's tyranny and governing without accountability of the first King George).

Mr. Rove, it appears, has now since abandoned the executive privilege argument, and now in order to put another spin on it, has used as his defense the "separation of powers" doctrine. Unfortunately, this one doesn't fly either, since the "separation of powers" doctrine does only apply to the President himself (and possibly his high level cabinet members) but certainly not to an architect, and only applies to the separation of powers and duties, not lack of accountability to the other branches for them, or to the people.

Fox media representatives, including Bill O'Reilly, that "no spin" spinner, of course, affirmed in his commentary this illusion for his co-compatriot and fellow Fox employee. I think Mr. Rove does need to review the relevant founder's letters and documents regarding the "checks and balances" functions of our government, which is what Congress and the legislature is to be for the Executive Office. The "check" when the President or any of his advisors or appointees steps out of "Constitutional" line, so all stays "in balance."

In fact, as the founder's intended the "separation of powers," it was in reference to the fact that each branch of the government had "separate" and distinct "enumerated powers" as contained within the Constitution itself. However, each of those branches were accountable not just to each other, but also to the American people (i.e., the right to petition contained in the Bill of Rights).

The impeachment provisions were included as a "check" on the President by the Congress and judiciary. The provisions for LIMITED protection from "arrest" of Congressional members was only extended to times when Congress was in session and votes were being taken (and due to acknowleding their role, being constrained to their enumerated powers, Congress was not in session the majority of the entire year as it is now). The founder's didn't extend "civil" or criminal protections for their "acts or omissions," rightly determining that "civil servants" of the people also should be held to the same and higher standards than those whom they governed.

These provisions have been utilized selectively and minimally in the past for political reasons, but on the scale of the abridgment of the Constitution that are going on now at all levels, it appears to most Americans we've got not only a President, but an entire Congress and Supreme Court that are doing their own thing with actual disdain for the entire framework of our country in their progressive abridgments and politicization of our national institutions.

Even the Supreme Court was to be held "accountable" for their decisions, with the provision that they were to be removed "when not in good behavior." In 1776 "good behavior" was intended and interpreted to mean any form of criminal conduct and behavior (including abridging also their Constitutional limits), not simply being drunk and disorderly.

While the Supreme Court has interpretative powers, its interpretative ability was limited to the clear language contained within it. Not rewriting or amending it, since there is a process for amendment, and the Supreme Court is not a part of that process. Thus, "public use" means just that "public use," and not "public purpose" as in the recent Kelo decision. And "the right to privacy" was intended to protect individuals from unlawful search and seizures, and security of their homes and properties primarily (as violated by much of the provisions of the Patriot Act), not as so broadly defined by the Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case (a case in which they even overstepped their jurisdictional boundaries, since it was an appeal of a case between two citizens, and not between a citizen and the state).

But it does appear fairly clear that with respect to the Rove refusal, his claim of "sovereign immunity" and "separation of powers" as "legal" in response to a Congressional subpoena, how contemptuous many on the Hill have become to our true form of government, and how suspect Mr. Rove's continued FOX analysis should be taken by the American people for any contributions he should make in his new media "analyst" role.

The "spins" both all the major networks, especially the cable networks, are nothing more than a ratings game with little fact to the reporting, and ex-teachers, lawyers and erstwhile architects are the ones now doing the spin doctoring.

Forget the federal and state goals regarding improving our education system and leaving them in charge, since with such propaganda it does makes you wonder about both the present and future brainwashing of the next generation. Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove and cable news style of educating I think the youth of this country could do without. You pay for this abuse people.

I hope maybe CNN or one of the other news networks will take this up with Mr. Rove in greater detail, on just what legal grounds he has in his beliefs on executive privilege, sovereign immunity, and separation of powers with respect to HIS position and protection, and just where that wording is in our Constitution?

But as now a Faux paid analyst with his new job spin doctoring on O'Reilly for the New Republican/Globalist/corporate communista cause (as opposed to the true Constitutional Conservatives) taking up most of his time, won't hold my breath. And also somewhat certain that due to the decline now in the integrity of most mass media professionals and journalistic reporting on both sides of the aisles, my equilibrium could handle the news bites.