I’ve added the 10 buck Friday poll to the top of my right sidebar so you have no excuse not to vote, now. I’m amazed that with so many blogs participating in this, there are so few votes. So if you haven’t voted yet, please do….. *cough* Dan Gilyeat*cough*
The idea is to send good conservatives to Congress, and most of these guys don’t have big pocketbooks. They could use our help.
The winning candidate gets the 10 buck money bombs when the winner is announced on Friday. More info, here.
He says no one would argue that “We have to have genuine border security”, (and even notes that Mexico should help with that!) He says we have to work with employers to make sure they’re “enforcing rules”, etc…..“then we gotta have a pathway for people who are undocumented and already here”.
“The Justice Department’s complaint that Arizona has somehow preempted federal law is nothing short of ridiculous,” Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., said in a statement to the media. “Arizona has simply reinforced longstanding federal laws, whose enforcement the Obama administration is now actively seeking to prevent . . . States like Arizona should not have to act on their own, but Washington’s decades of neglect for border security leave them no choice. The federal government should be vigorously securing the border, not suing the State of Arizona.”
The Obama administration has little chance of prevailing in this case, but that’s not what they’re really after, anyway. This is about fanning the flames of pro-amnesty forces, and shoring up the Hispanic vote this November.
The weird thing is, Americans overwhelmingly support Arizona’s law, so they must be counting on a lot of illegal votes.
Two months ago, north of Monterrey, the Mexican military discovered a huge weapons cache that should send a shiver down the spine of any U.S. law enforcement official. The arms cache was located roughly 50 miles away from the Texas border.
Finally Arizona passes a law making what is already a crime under federal law a crime under State law.
The Arizona law gives Arizona law enforcement the authority to do what federal law enforcement officers can already do … but aren’t.
Democrats see Hispanic votes slipping away if the law is enforced.
Obama instructs a lawsuit to be filed citing “usurping federal authority.”
Question: Robbing a federally insured bank is a federal crime. It’s also a crime under the statutes of the State of Arizona. Should the Justice Department file a lawsuit against Arizona demanding that Arizona law enforcement officials cease enforcing Arizona’s law against robbing banks because it usurps federal authority? Just wondering.
It makes no sense. The woman has no judicial experience, she’s clearly a radical with a judicial philosophy hostile to the Constitution, she’s manipulated science to further her extreme position on abortion, and worst of all she’s young and healthy, which means we’ll be dealing with her destructive views for the next 30 years….
And what are our Republican Senators doing? Rolling over and playing dead.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, one of the few GOP senators who can normally be counted on to stand up for conservatism, has all but agreed to buy Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a celebratory lunch once she’s confirmed.
Kagan is a documented enemy of the individual right to keep and bear arms, a self-described practitioner of judicial activism (she believes the Constitution has to evolve with the times), an attorney who views “equality” as paramount (particularly when that equality encompasses gay relationships like marriage), and a woman who refuses to admit whether she believes the government has the right to ban books based on their political content.
Yet Cornyn, on day three of Kagan’s confirmation hearings, said he was trying to ascertain what kind of justice she “will be” (such defeatist language almost always portends that it’s a foregone conclusion that the nominee “will be” confirmed).
And he even added: “My gut tells me that she will probably be a predictable member of the minority block” and also said, “I assume she will be confirmed.”
Why assume something will happen when you have the power to stop it?
The rules of “cloture” and “nuclear option” aside and assuming all 100 members are present, it would take 41 senators to filibuster a vote to confirm Elena Kagan as the 112th Justice of the Supreme Court. It seems rather odd that 41 senators could impede the will of 59 colleagues, especially because it takes only a simple majority to complete President Obama’s plan to ensure that the makeup of the court loses no ground in the relentless pursuit of unlimited (and unconstitutional) power. Guess how many senators are Republicans?
In general, I prefer majority rule in a legislative body. But, because confirmation of the wrong nominee to the Court is of such singular importance to our nation, my advice to the 41 is to filibuster.
***
The only evidence worth considering are the facts revealed by an independent investigation into the nominee’s past. And, the only question worth investigating is whether that past is predictive of a willingness to abide by an oath to support the Constitution (otherwise known as the “rule of law”) or whether it is predictive of a plan “to mold and steer the law in order to promote ethical values and achieve certain social ends” (otherwise known as the “rule of whatever floats your boat”). Ms. Kagan approves of the latter. I do not. Nominees who believe in the activist approach to judging missed their calling, for Congress is where the job of “molding the law to achieve social ends” properly resides.
I’ve already linked to this AUL video, along with the transcript of Dr. Yoest’s powerful July 1 testimony. In case you missed it, the video is worth watching. Dr. Yoest is a powerful spokesman for the pro life cause, and is calling for an investigation into Kagan’s Clinton era hijinks :
Under the circumstances, why is it considered “dirty” to filibuster this nominee? Just because she’s been affable at her hearings, and is a Twilight fan? I don’t get it.
Senators to Contact, via Atlas Shrugs,(watch her video at the link, as well):
Here’s some kick-A poetry, courtesy of Dr. Seuss Alinsky.
I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker, Nan ,
I do not like this 'YES WE CAN.'
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it, nope, nope, nope!
Don’t tell me you never get any culture at Nice Deb.
I heard this guy on KMBZ’s Darla Jaye show,last night, and thought you’d enjoy some of his work. He talks like Larry the Cable Guy, but his music reminds me of Lou Reed. It’s good stuff, check it out:
To see more of his videos, go to his website, here.
