Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Are we serious this time? Among the other items within the liberal agenda spearheaded by President Barack Obama as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and others, amnesty for illegal immigrants, no deportation for those here illegally and lax national security and border control feature prominently. But a few members of Congress, 22 to be exact, have put forth a resolution reminding everyone the rule of law must prevail to secure America’s borders and protect the nation.

111th CONGRESS 2d SessionH. RES. 1026Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 21, 2010

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. NYE, Mr. FLEMING, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HARPER, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. BARROW, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. OLSON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. SHULER, and Mr. CHILDERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.Whereas the United States, as a nation of immigrants, recognizes and celebrates the economic and cultural contributions of generations of lawful immigrants;

Whereas the United States must remain a place where lawful immigrants can come to enjoy the promises of religious, political, and economic freedom; and

Whereas the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

(1) the use of a basic pilot program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note; commonly known as the E-verify program) by employers of workers within the United States should be mandatory, and that enforcement policies should hold both employers and employees responsible whenever an individual’s employment violates United States immigration law;

(2) installing and sustaining the necessary border infrastructure and manpower to effectively secure and control United States borders to prevent the unauthorized passage of persons or contraband is a critical responsibility of the Federal Government; and

(3) any immigration reform proposal adopted by Congress should not legalize, grant amnesty for, or confer any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United States of any individual.

It is not everything we need but it IS a good start. Problems remain with those supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants like Mayor Bloomberg.

NY Mayor Bloomberg to promote immigration reform

On the hot-button issue of immigration, he favors more liberal laws on allowing immigrants into the country and legalizing those who lack documentation. That will draw opposition from advocates of tightening the border and deportation of illegal aliens.

“We’re committing what I call national suicide,” Bloomberg said on the NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday. “Somehow or other, after 9/11 we went from reaching out and trying to get the best and the brightest to come here, to trying to keep them out.”

“In fact, we do the stupidest thing, we give them educations and then don’t give them green cards.”

What planet is Bloomberg living on? Sure, foreign nationals are educated in the US. But that is but one aspect of the problem. We’re talking about illegal immigration. Is Bloomberg suggesting students from foreign countries are here illegally? Probably not.

And his suggestion that educating the best and the brightest is a direct insult to American citizens who are pursuing their education here or already received it. Yet in addition he wants to loosen the almost non-existent immigration law and enforcement further.

This is the mindset that must be resisted. What Bloomberg suggests IS NOT reform. He merely wants to eliminate immigration law and completely open the borders. You don’t fix what is wrong with your country by importing replacements for your own citizens or exporting their jobs to another country. That has been Mexico’s answer to their country’s problems. Export it to the US. Then they benefit by the money sent by illegals back to Mexico.

The point is the US needs to improve education and the performance of students and teachers without abusing immigration law. And Mexico and other countries need to fix their own country’s problems without burdening the US. Stop sending American jobs overseas and importing cheaper labor here. And let other countries fix their own problems without affecting the US.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What a strange coincidence that a story about Hannah Giles partner in exposing ACORN corruption would appear the day of or day after this blog publishes a post (or more correctly, a video and link) advocating for Giles defense fund regarding legal action against her based on their earlier documentary film.

Federal officials accused four men, including a conservative activist, of posing as telephone repairmen to tamper with phones at the New Orleans offices of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Why would James O’Keefe and three others be interested in Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)?

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

Landrieu would be the recipient of what amounts to a payoff (bribe) for her healthcare vote in the form of $100 million, taxpayer dollars, for increased Medicaid coverage for Louisiana. This is exactly the same kind of payoff offered to Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) for the state of Nebraska.

So what’s the deal? First, Hannah Giles is not involved in this story other than to mention she and O’Keefe put together the documentary exposing ACORN corruption which everyone should be familiar with by now. Second, this blogger still enthusiastically supports Giles and O’Keefe for their ACORN documentary and equally objects to Congress giving any more money to ACORN. Third, who knows what O’Keefe was thinking on this latest story but it changes nothing about the earlier documentary.

Finally, you are still encouraged to defend Hannah Giles as indicated in the previous post. You can do so by following the link provided in that post. As the sole statement in that post suggests, if you have money for Haiti you have money for Hannah. Send a few bucks to help her out. She did a fine job exposing ACORN for what it is….. corrupt. And there is no reason to think she had anything to do with O’Keefe going off the reservation. If that is in fact what happened. But the report from WSJ seems to suggest no one is denying what took place at Landrieu’s offices regarding O’Keefe and three others.

Defend Hannah Giles

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Defend Hannah Giles (click here)

If you have money $$ for Haiti you have money $$ for Hannah

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. The document shown here bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898.

“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a defense of the Constitution in The Federalist, they explained their judgment that a strong national government must have built-in restraints: “You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The writers of the Constitution had given the executive and legislative branches powers that would limit each other as well as the judiciary branch. The Constitution gave Congress the power to impeach and remove officials, including judges or the President himself. The President was given the veto power to restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this intricate system, the role of the Supreme Court had not been defined. It therefore fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the triangular structure of checks and balances by establishing the principle of judicial review. Although no other law was declared unconstitutional until the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate Federal and state laws that are contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged.

“The Constitution of the United States,” said Woodrow Wilson, “was not made to fit us like a strait jacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness.” The often-praised wisdom of the authors of the Constitution consisted largely of their restraint. They resisted the temptation to write too many specifics into the basic document. They contented themselves with establishing a framework of government that included safeguards against the abuse of power. When the Marshall decision Marbury v. Madison completed the system of checks and balances, the United States had a government in which laws could be enacted, interpreted and executed to meet challenging circumstances.

(The order bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898. )

(Information excerpted from Milestone Documents in the National Archives [Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1995] pp. 23-24.)

In honor of the current debate on ‘health reform’ this post is presented. It is hoped that if all else fails and the White House and Congress continue to ignore the public on this contrived issue SCOTUS will rise to the occasion and strike it down as, you guessed it, ‘repugnant to the Constitution’. And yes, we have activist judges who legislate from the bench, etc., but perhaps eventually we will return to sanity.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
(this post continues a theme previously initiated here called Rights and Responsibilities in America: Civics Literacy)

Shamnesty for illegal immigrants is rearing its ugly head again. A new bill introduced by Rep Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) brings to mind two items immediately. Gutierrez is from Illinois and the Chicago political machine as is President Obama. And the word ‘caucus’ suggests, go figure, special interest. Wordnet defines ‘caucus’ as follows:

meet to select a candidate or promote a policy
a closed political meeting

Gutierrez describes his bill in the quote below.

My bill will promote fair immigration proceedings, humane treatment of immigration detainees, and policies that respect the tenet of community policing. No more raids in our community, no more separation of our families. Now, none of this works without a strong commitment to America’s labor force. None of it works without a strong commitment. So one of the tenets of our bill will be comprehensive immigration reform, has to mean—has to mean—to protecting all workers.

A press release from Gutierrez is presented below. If not simply liberals the co-sponsors of his bill belong to one caucus (special interest) or another or are Hispanic.(one special interest as regards shamnesty). What ever happened to being American and not allowing one’s self to pursue agendas contrary to the rule of law and founding principles? To honor one’s responsibility as a citizen of the United States includes adhering to the rule of law. That also includes requiring those here illegally to, at the very least, return to their country of origin and get in line for legal entry to this country. Any argument to the contrary does not meet the smell test. Allowing illegal immigrants to thwart the rule of law as their first action as a prospective immigrant defies reason as well as indicates a willingness to do as one pleases rather than demonstrate characteristics of good citizenship. To be blunt, Mr Gutierrez’ legislative proposal is a crock. As is the sentiment of those who support it.

Looks like the shamnesty monster has returned as everyone expected. Time to defend this nation again from those who would destroy it by ignoring its founding.

Other related posts on this blog

Send immigration views to Congress (click here)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

the press release…..
Comprehensive Immigration Reform to be Introduced December 15
December 11, 2009
Rebecca Dreilinger (202) 225-8203

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Washington D.C.) On Tuesday, December 15, Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) will introduce new legislation, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP), to the U.S. House of Representatives. Gutierrez will be joined by members of many different faiths and backgrounds, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Black Caucus, Asian Pacific American Caucus and Progressive Caucus.

Who:
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-4), Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force

Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-12), Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus

Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (NY-11), Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus

Rep. Mike Honda (CA-15), Chair of Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX-16), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6), Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Rep. Joe Baca (CA-43)

Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)

Rep. Judy Chu (CA-32)

Rep. Joseph Crowley (NY-7)

Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17)

Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20)

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)

Rep. Grace Napolitano (CA-38)

Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz (TX-27)

Rep. Pedro R. Pierluisi (PR-At large)

Rep. Jared Polis (CO-2)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9)

Rep. Jose E. Serrano (NY-16)

Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9)

Other Members of Congress

What:
Introduction of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation

When:
12:30 pm, Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Where:
Room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building

“We have waited patiently for a workable solution to our immigration crisis to be taken up by this Congress and our President,” said Rep. Gutierrez. “The time for waiting is over. This bill will be presented before Congress recesses for the holidays so that there is no excuse for inaction in the New Year. It is the product of months of collaboration with civil rights advocates, labor organizations, and members of Congress. It is an answer to too many years of pain —mothers separated from their children, workers exploited and undermined security at the border— all caused at the hands of a broken immigration system. This bill says ‘enough,’ and presents a solution to our broken system that we as a nation of immigrants can be proud of.”

Press should confirm their attendance with Rebecca Dreilinger at 202-225-8203 or via email at Rebecca.Dreilinger@mail.house.gov.

###

Amazing how so many Illinois POLS have links to irregularities in real estate. Mr Gutierrez is no exception.

In October 2008, Gutiérrez became subject to federal scrutiny as a result of a $200,000 loan he received from a campaign contributor on whose behalf he personally lobbied the mayor of Chicago to back a real estate development.

related:

Culture of corruption: Cory Voorhis, Denver ICE & the Voorhis prosecution (Michelle Malkin)

A regular feature on MoreWhat.com is the Forum section that currently lists various stories referred to as Upbeat Conservative News. Frequently a list of those stories are posted on the blog. A few stories from the last couple of days merit some additional emphasis. This post begins with Navy SEALs accused by a terrorist of punching him and the subsequent court martial.

This story has not been carefully researched on this blog. So correct me if I’m wrong but reports read thus far suggest the decision to proceed with a court martial is based solely on the accusation from a terrorist. If any evidence to support the accusation has been presented, please advise in the comment section. Given other similar stories since the election of Barack Obama as President of the US a trend seems to be growing. Not only did the Messiah launch his administration with a World Apology Tour and appeasing sources of threat to our national security but he has made every effort to diminish the defense and security of our nation. The SEALs’ story rises as just another target of his agenda.

From the Upbeat Conservative News listing in the forum the following link is provided for this story. Upbeat Conservative News, 40 Congressmen: Dismiss SEALs Case It is also interesting to note that a simple Google search on this topic returns results from sources not generally regarded as the MSM. So the mainstream media apparently deems this story unworthy of their attention.

On a related topic it is suggested the Obama administration is holding back intel on the recent Ft Hood tragedy and its ‘alleged’ perp. Here’s a link to the story from Upbeat Conservative News. From the intent to close Gitmo and send terrorists to civilian prisons around the country to the Afghanistan ‘exit strategy’ and doing nothing about other foreign threats to the US, like Iran and North Korea, these two stories highlight the continuing reckless policies of Barack Obama.

Although not as serious but equally troubling are several other stories from the UCN listings in the forum. BTW, while the feature is named Upbeat Conservative News you may think some of the stories are not so upbeat. Understand that troubles caused by liberals are still upbeat since they improve the chances the public as well as elected representation will move to the right as a result of damage caused by the left. Back to the UCN stories.

Much of the climate change fracas is centered on left versus right, real science versus fake science and the like. But a story in UCN suggests the real push behind the AGW fiasco. It mirrors the agenda of Al Gore and making billions off this scam. How about an organized effort to essentially steal money and technology from the most successful countries in the world and GIVING it to others in the name of combating climate change? More redistribution of wealth for Obama and his socialist buddies.

Last but certainly not least is the comic relief of the Obama administration’s economics’ crew. Summers says the recession is over and Romer says its not. These are the people advising Obama on matters economic. Could this be one indication Obamanation has no clue? Oh, you say that’s not fair? C’mon! If for no other reason members of the ‘administration’ should be able to present information without looking like idiots. But the primary reason this is bad points to the idea that on fundamental financial data Obama’s top two money dudes are polar opposites. Ain’t it great?

So that’s it for Moan-day December 14, 2009. You’ve been briefed. Okay you’ve been boxer/briefed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Free the SEALs (Michelle Malkin)

Another slight departure for typical posting on this blog courtesy of a story one simply cannot ignore. There are serious and dangerous implications in this bit of news. And there is the entertainment value from the fact that the scenario is so stupid as to be categorized under stranger than fiction. In other words, you cannot make this stuff up. Well, certainly you could. But would it be believable? Would it provide the suspension of disbelief most fiction writing requires? The sad truth is conditions on this planet have deminished to a point where this kind of story is all to common.

The man who oversees Texas’ criminal justice system called Wednesday for a shake-up as authorities searched for a prisoner in a wheelchair who escaped on foot Monday from two armed guards as he was being transferred between prisons.

That’s right! An inmate escaped on foot from a wheelchair. The report suggests this may have been a hoax conjured by the inmate relating to the claim he had a stroke and needed the wheelchair for mobility. Oh yes, mobile he is.

Now for the serious part. The 6-foot, 200-pound Comeaux was serving a life sentence for aggravated sexual assault and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Now for the strange part. This is what his Mom had to say. “I’m trying to find out what the heck happened,” she said from her home in Houston. “How did my son come in contact with a gun inside the prison? I know he didn’t leave and go shopping. I’m looking at a corrupt system here.”

And there’s more.“His record is bad, and I admit that. I’m not hiding that.”

She said she hopes he returns to his parents’ house “so that I can talk to him, give him a good meal, a good bath, and send him back where he come from.”

She is also concerned that this may be a state conspiracy to set up her son for execution during the ensuing manhunt.

Wow, we actually have more problems to solve than those they are creating in Washington. Who’d a thunk it?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The left enjoys referring to the GOP as the ‘party of no.’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has press releases whining about the GOP holding up nominations or confirmations of President Obama. David Hamilton was confirmed for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by the US Senate in a 70-29-1 vote. The ‘not voting’ member is a Republican. Ten of the 70 voting ‘aye’ for confirmation are Republicans. The occasional support for the GOP from Senator Lieberman was not available this time as he voted to confirm. Read the rest of this post and the links to consider the implications of this event. Do the math. Had the 11 members of the GOP voting ‘aye’ or not voting opposed the nomination what would the outcome have been?

One question is presented in advance. Are the Republicans who voted to confirm David Hamilton RINOs?

An article from NRO in March of 2009 discusses ACLU Hamilton as a nominee for the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Follow the link to gain some insight on the nominee who was confirmed this week.

Seventh Circuit Candidate David Hamilton—An ACLU “Moderate”! [Ed Whelan]

In an article headlined “Moderate Is Said to Be Pick for Court,” the New York Times reports that President Obama’s first nominee to a federal appellate court seat is expected to be David F. Hamilton. Hamilton, appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994 (despite the ABA’s “not qualified” rating), is expected to be named to the Seventh Circuit.

An excerpt from Senator Leahy on the Hamilton nomination for the Seventh Circuit.

“I believe our confirmation decisions should not be based on partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will ‘vote’ on particular issues of public moment or controversy. I have instead tried to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges, and also on whether they indeed appreciate the vital, and yet vitally limited, role of the Federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, rather than seeking to impose their own policy views.”

Senator Lugar believes Judge Hamilton “is superbly qualified under both sets of criteria.” So do I. Judge Hamilton is a well-respected Federal judge not known for partisanship or an ideological agenda. In light of his superb record, broad support, and unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, it is no wonder Judge Hamilton’s nomination for this important appellate seat has the support of both home state Senators. He should be confirmed with a strong bipartisan majority.

Interesting comments from Leahy considering every judicial nomination is partisan in nature. It would be good if this were not the case but it is. And Leahy’s characterization that this nominee has been selected based on his qualifications is absurd. (Of course, that is merely this blog’s opinion)

The following is the result of Roll Call Vote 349 (In the YEAs group and the Not Voting Group, Republicans voting in support of the nomination are in bold type.)

YEAs

Alexander (R-TN) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs

Barrasso(R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1

Hutchison (R-TX)


David Frank Hamilton was first elevated to the status of judge by virtue of a Clinton nomination in 1994. (record from Thomas LOC, below)

Nomination: PN1469-103
Date Received: June 08, 1994 (103rd Congress)
Nominee: David F. Hamilton, of Indiana, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana vice S. Hugh Dillin, retired.
Referred to: Senate Judiciary
Reported by: Senate Judiciary

Legislative Actions

Floor Action: June 08, 1994 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Committee Action: September 21, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.
Committee Action: September 28, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported favorably.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Reported by Mr. Biden, Committee on the Judiciary, without printed report.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Placed on Senate Executive Calendar. Calendar No. 1289.
Floor Action: October 07, 1994 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.

Organization: The Judiciary

Control Number: 103PN0146900

Final note: Do the GOP members voting to confirm Hamilton or not voting demonstrate conservative principles?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate approves ACORN/abortion radical judge David Hamilton (Michelle Malkin) 

The land of fruits and nuts is a well-deserved moniker for the state of Schwarzenegger. Some call it America’s failed state. And now California’s First Lady is taking some heat off her husband by operating while under the influence of a cellphone. Will Arnold terminate her? Is Maria Shrivering? A report suggests this is the third time she has offended.

The only reason for this post is to point out stupid things in politics. Certainly the Shriver story fits. A report about other stupid things related to this story features a list of ‘idiotic laws’ recently signed by the Governator.

Here’s an excerpt……

The non-haha part of the story, aside from how it provides yet another example that nuisance laws are made to be followed primarily by people who look like criminals, is that Schwarzenegger this week, in the midst of his state’s ongoing financial free-fall, signed still another round of largely idiotic laws. A surface-scratching list: [follow the link for the list]

Let’s not forget to add the cellphone laws. Sure, we have to do something. Too many idiots are jeopardizing safety by texting or other use of wireless devices while driving. The problem is you cannot make life idiot-proof by passing laws to control idiots. You only look like an idiot for doing so.

From childbirth, assuming the new human has not been aborted, parents have a set of responsibilities regarding the child. Not the least of which is teaching it how to behave and act in a manner compatible with intelligent living. It is obvious and there are many examples of how this process has been a failure. Based on all the idiot laws on the books it would be reasonable to suggest failures in raising children require we outlaw having sex.

Don’t laugh. It could happen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If there ever was a time when late night ‘variety’ show host David Letterman possessed any credibility as an observer or commentator on American culture and life in general it has expired. Sure, the David Letterman Show was merely the CBS response to The Tonight Show on NBC that has been reduced to nothing that resembles the earlier work of veterans Johnny Carson and Jack Paar. Another testament to the notion the Golden Years of Television may be a figment of someone’s imagination. Not unlike the idea that celebrity status is an achievement that bestows a rank and honor worthy of the owner’s display of class and taste.

News stories reported over recent days dominating gossip columns feature perhaps the number one celeb story about Roman Polanski. Barring some revelation vindicating this Hollywood sleaze from his despicable transgression decades ago justice is embarrassingly overdue for this common pedophile. And this week’s report that a CBS employee attempted to extort $2 million from David Letterman for sexual encounters with other CBS employees which Letterman admits adds to the lack of a code of conduct in the ‘entertainment’ business. Perhaps by coincidence this week’s guest list for Letterman included another ‘celeb’ with an equally bankrupt character. Madonna Louise Ciccone arrived on the show via the New York Rangers like the straight man to setup the relevant one liner describing her lifestyle choices. The fawning audience responded favorably to Letterman’s introduction of Ciccone which included a list of her commercial success.Undoubtedly they also approved of everything else ‘Madonna’. ( a name choice bordering on blasphemy given personal history)

Just like that audience various well-known and not so well-known Hollywood types volunteered their voices to rise in defense of Roman Polanski. While politicians who fall from grace are shamed under an avalanche of well deserved criticism and others in their ranks distance themselves from the offending entity no such ritual exists with Hollywood celebrity. For Hollywood it is more like a badge of dishonor than is adorned by the owner and increases their celeb status contrary to the shame that would attach to an ordinary human once they understood the error of their ways.

Dishonor for most people requires accepting the consequences for your behavior and providing some sort of restitution as part of the process of learning from your mistakes. Some mistakes may be too egregious for this simple atonement or ritual for righting a wrong. Not that anyone should adopt the dishonor routine observed by some in Eastern cultures that results in the demise of the culprit but the celeb world takes it to the other extreme. It’s okay. It’s cool. Fans love us for it. And that’s the problem.

For every pop culture icon or Ho_lywood celebrity who embarks on a personal crusade to save the world they would do well to look inward and cleanup their own backyard before engaging in publicity stunts to hide their own demons. Maybe that is why celebs fawn over President Obama. They see vindication for themselves in the Obamanation. A place that recruits from the most corrupt venues like The Chicago political machine. Celebs audacity is only trumped by the Messiah’s using Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals. Promoting their morally bankrupt agenda while criticizing those favoring an adherence to traditional values and a return to founding ideals that built our nation.

For celebrities and members of the Obamanation who claim America’s image needs to be repaired you might start with introspection. Maybe America’s image is just fine. Maybe your’s is the one in need of repair.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Although a favorite target of liberals is former President George W. Bush liberals have their own presidential problems. Now Bill Clinton has reentered the political discussion and if memory serves was given some sort of BS envoy job by Obama. Not less BS than the job given to the former First Lady HRC. Both of the Clinton’s have meaningless posts in the Obama Administration but apparently feel the need to ‘back’ the Messiah anyhow. And there’s Jimmy Carter who did no favors for the current Admin.

Yet the libs continue their worn out GOP bashing amid all the clamor their impotent party and fringe supporters create. Fringe components like nutroots, MoveOn and the Soros gang bashed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Patraeus and US troops with their antiwar sentiment leading up to the 2008 election. Obama began with campaign rhetoric convincing supporters the US would immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and punish everyone in the Bush Administration.

The fringe and not so fringe left want government everything from bailouts to stimulus to free healthcare as well as shamnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, abortion paid by tax dollars and more expense to the American public through AGW, cap and tax and a crushing debt exacerbated by President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Congress is still muddled in Obamacare and cannot turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. Okay, there’s not enough lipstick on the planet to accommodate this pig. Dems don’t appear to have the strength to finish Iraq or Afghanistan as required, fail to handle problems like Iran and North Korea properly and hand the Russians a gift by abandoning allies in Europe with an another appeasement missile defense plan.

As indicated by all the tax cheat nominations and withdrawals, plus the ACORN connection and shady resumes of most of the Messiah’s chosen few Michelle Malkin is not the least off the mark emphasizing the Culture of Corruption and placing it squarely on the liberal majority in Washington. The GOP had their fall from grace and lost the majority in the last two elections. It is now the Dems turn and they have wasted no time promoting a ‘throw the bums out’ option for voters in 2010.

Elections have consequences. Democrats wanted to be the majority and got their chance. Their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being confirmed. It is way past time to point fingers and blame those who were previously the majority.

To the Democratic Party:

You wanted the job, you got it. Now govern properly and abandon your insane agenda or pay the price next year.

Complete the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandon your present course on healthcare. Reduce spending and increase tax cuts. Stop the bailouts and porkulus madness. Forget cap and tax. Give up shamnesty and improve national security and defense. Follow the rule of law and the founding documents. Correct the other items mentioned above.

Once you get that completed come back here for the next task list.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

On the Nomination (Confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein, of MA, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )

The announcement above is from the US Senate and relates to, among other things, the popular discussion of President Obama and his appointment of ‘czars’ and other staff to his administration. No doubt as much dismissal of the process is uttered by liberal sources as concern about the process is voiced by the loyal opposition. So it all becomes a little silly. Or is it? Below is what appears to be an example of trying to dismiss the concern on the czar/appointee thing.

Get This Rat a Lawyer!

Glenn Beck says Cass Sunstein wants to give animals the right to sue humans. Really?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, at 8:49 PM ET

But, if you believe Fox News host Glenn Beck, it could happen here too.

Glenn Beck may be regarded as flamboyant by some critics or worse by left-leaning analysis. But he wasn’t wrong on the ACORN story was he? And he is correct on many things which means this blog is only leaving the door open in case he has been wrong on something. But when it comes to Cass Sunstein, the czar epidemic and the liberal response there is at least one evaluation of Mr Sunstein which is disturbing.

If Slate wants to downplay criticism of the Sunstein appointment it might be best to leave the whole thing alone. Even in their article referenced above they essentially agree that Sunstein believes animals have legal rights. And that leaves the door open for some really bizarre legal battles based on human history. Things could get out of hand considering humans EAT animals. Is there a need to say anymore on that topic?

What is of more concern regarding Cass Sunstein is the longer list of his publishing resume’. Of note is a book entitled, ‘ The Bill of Rights and the Modern State’, co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 1992). One of Sunstein’s contributions to the book quotes Alexander Meiklejohn.

Meiklejohn is known as an advocate of first-amendment freedoms and was a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Meiklejohn was selected by John F. Kennedy to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was presented by Lyndon B. Johnson shortly after Kennedy’s death.

Sunstein’s quote of Meiklejohn is presented below.

The radio as it now operates among us is not free. Nor is it entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. It is not engaged in the task of enlarging and enriching human communication. It is engaged in making money. And the First Amendment does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage.

The radio, as we now have it, is not cultivating those qualities of taste, of reasoned judgment, of integrity, of loyalty, of mutual understanding upon which the enterprise of self-government depends. It corrupts both our morals and our intelligence.

Sunstein proposes ‘a New Deal with respect to speech’, freedom of speech, that is. You know, the First Amendment. For those of you concerned about the Fairness Doctrine and the liberal agenda to shutdown talk radio. You’re not crazy. Here’s what Sunstein says.

It applies much of the reasoning of the New Deal attack on the common law to current questions of First Amendment law. Such an approach would produce significant changed in existing understandings of the nature of the free speech guarantee. It would call for a large scale revision in our view of when a law ‘abridges’ the freedom of speech. At a minimum, it would insist that many imaginable democratic interferences with the autonomy of broadcasters or newspapers are not ‘abridgments’ at all.

And more of what the left may care to ignore on any discussion of Cass Sunstein is the remainder of his publishing resume’ which includes the following selections:

The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, (Basic Books 2006)

The Partial Constitution, (Harvard University Press 1993)

Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, (The Free Press 1993)

Free Markets and Social Justice, (2002)

The Cost-Benefit State, (American Bar Association 2002)

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Basic Books 2005)

After the Rights Revolution: Preconceiving the Regulatory State, (Harvard University Press 1990)

(end of list)

And the left would also like to dismiss that vast right wing conspiracy focused on the free speech threat of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are more than a little concerned the current liberal majority has some sinister plans in mind that include destroying free speech and the remainder of the founding documents. Maybe all that talk of socialism is not so far fetched after all. Of course this blog never thought it was in the first place. The information above certainly supports that notion. But those of us who do not support the liberal agenda are labeled racists or Nazis or some other pejorative. Thanks libs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Is this how the masquerade begins? Okay, the cancer thing may be the beginning. Those distancing themselves from the idea to release the only person convicted of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland are also part of the beginning. When people began questioning the validity of the cancer claim the obvious conspiracy theory arose expecting a fake death, funeral and subsequent plot by Libya to financially support and place al-Megrahi in seclusion or some sort of convict relocation program.

The circumstances surrounding a diagnosis of prostate cancer like those of the release arrangements are suspect. So again, has the masquerade begun in earnest with this latest report?

Lockerbie Bomber Hospitalized in Libya
By VOA News 02 September 2009

Libyan officials say the convicted Lockerbie bomber has been hospitalized in Tripoli.

They gave no other details on Abdel Baset al-Megrahi’s condition.

Last month, Scotland released Megrahi on compassionate grounds after he served eight years of a life sentence, saying he was near death from cancer. The decision prompted an outpouring of anger from families of the Lockerbie bombing victims.

In Scotland’s parliament Wednesday, lawmakers voted to reject the government’s decision to release Megrahi. The government asked parliament to endorse the decision to free the bomber, but lawmakers - in a largely symbolic poll - voted 73 to 50 against the action.

Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown says his government did not pressure Scotland to release the bomber to improve Britain’s trade links with Libya, despite reports that he wanted the bomber freed.

Mr. Brown said Wednesday that he told Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi that the decision was Scotland’s alone.

Earlier, Britain’s foreign secretary said Prime Minister Brown did not want the convicted Lockerbie bomber to die in prison, because it would have a catastrophic effect on British-Libyan relations.

Notes taken during a meeting between British official Bill Rammell and Libya’s minister for Europe, Abdulati Alobidi, show Rammell telling the Libyans that neither Mr. Brown nor British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wanted the bomber to die in prison.

The documents also show that Straw decided to include Megrahi in a prisoner transfer deal to help improve ties with Libya. Straw originally excluded the bomber from the deal.

Megrahi is the only person convicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

No one wants to air their dirty laundry in public. But that doesn’t stop it from happening. It seems that when most countries are the subject of criticism about their history those raising the issue are not from the target country. Currently some in the UK are defending their brand of healthcare against criticism from those debating a similar issue in the US. Iran and North Korea are getting criticized by just about every other country for their pursuit of nukes and their subsequent denials or lame justifications for it. And the US gets criticized for just about anything and everything. A likely downside to being on top of the pile. And Russia is not exempt from criticism either.

Sunday, August 23, marks the 70th anniversary of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - the non-aggression treaty signed in 1939 by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The pact included a secret protocol dividing Eastern and Central Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence. Days after it was signed, first German and then Soviet forces invaded Poland.

This kind of discussion will ruffle the Bear’s fur. Drawing comparisons between Stalin and Hitler will not go unnoticed in Russia. …’ in May, President Dmitri Medvedev issued a decree setting up a presidential commission to counter what he called attempts to “falsify history.” ‘ And then there is mention of something that seems akin to Russia’s Soviet legacy. ‘ Russian Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu introduced legislation in parliament that would make it a crime to deny the Soviet victory in World War II.’ The criticism is having the expected reaction in the Kremlin and elsewhere.

So what else are the critics saying? Dmitry Furman of the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Europe calls the presidential commission to counter what it deems historical falsification an “idiotic undertaking” and a “very bad idea.” He also says Stalin’s government killed as many, or even more people than Hitler’s.

But, given the suffering Russians endured after Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union, Furman says it is natural that many resist equating Stalinism and Nazism.

Furman says it is “very difficult psychologically” for Russians to put what they see as their “victors” in the Great Patriotic War, as they call World War II, on the same level with the vanquished Nazis.

This might be a case of forgetting to note that Stalin was not representative of the Russian people. It may be difficult indeed for Russia to come to grips with the legacy of a madman.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trade deals have been reported as the ’stimulus’ behind the release of a man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am’s Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Jubilation was the reaction in Libya. Not so for those who mourn the tragedy and deaths of passengers, crew and residents on the ground. But believe it or not Scotland’s Justice Secretary claims it was all in the name of mercy for the convicted bomber.

Lockerbie Bomber Released From Prison

By Sonja Pace London

The man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, has been granted release from prison on compassionate grounds. The former Libyan intelligence agent is dying of prostate cancer, but news of his release has sparked very mixed reactions.

Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill carefully outlined the legal options and the process involved in coming to a final decision. He condemned the 1988 bombing as an heinous crime, and said he supported Abdelbaset Ali Mohmeit al-Megrahi’s conviction. He said, while it is important that justice be served, mercy must also be shown.

“For these reasons and these reasons alone, it is my decision that Mr. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmeit al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die,” said MacAskill.

The question from this blog added to all those being raised now is this. Does al-Megrahi really have prostate cancer? So you say we will know that in a matter of months. Do you suppose a fake funeral could be arranged in Libya? Since the government there popped for the luxurious accommodations where al-Magrahi’s family resides, according to reports in the news, how tough would it be for them to fake a funeral and provide a luxurious secret lifestyle for the released convict?

Links to reports about reaction in Libya, trade deal claims and pressure on Britain are provided below

Britain under pressure amid Lockerbie release

Release of Lockerbie terrorist linked to trade deal

Gaddafi embraces Lockerbie bomber

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com