New Year's Wishes

Mrs. Z had a great list that I just had to repost here:

I wish all Americans loved and supported America again.

I wish we could keep people out who only treat our country like a dirty door mat.

I wish we would have the guts to err on OUR side again without caring about Political Correctness.

I wish we could get kids admiring and respecting their parents again.

I wish more parents deserved that.

I wish we didn't have to put profit before character and we could stop certain commercials from airing without being called prigs...

I wish that journalists would suddenly see how biased they've been and they'd become fair and balanced again.

I wish we could get back to our Judeo-Christian roots and not be afraid of hurting the feelings of the 6% or so who don't share those beliefs

I wish people would take a good long look at why the above wish will never be again.

I wish we didn't have Obama as president or any of his cabinet.

I wish we'd get term limits very soon.

I wish there was no such thing as a terrorist

I wish the health care bill would be given time to really do something right and that Republicans would be welcome to the table of discussion on all subjects in Congress.

I wish we'd know we'd all be safe this year.

I wish a lot of things but thought you might have a few, too.............

Read more...

We Owed $14,837,937 in Taxes

But we only PAID $12,857.

Read more...

TSA Working As It Should: Targeting Rich White Women

By now, you’ve all heard that Janet Napolitano, the head of Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, is going around saying that the system worked perfectly when a guy on the US no-fly list, who had been turned in by his own father, boarded a plane and detonated a bomb, only to be foiled by a bad detonator and alert passengers. I leave it to Jonah Goldberg to write the perfect obituary for the administration’s attempt to aggrandize itself on this one:

Understandably, the White House is trying very hard to get out in front of the would-be Christmas bomber story. The head of the Department of Homeland Security isn’t helping. I watched her on three shows and each time she was more annoying, maddening and absurd than the pevious appearance. It is her basic position that the “system worked” because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was “foiled” by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, she claims, that her agency is doing everything right.

That is just about the dumbest thing she could say, on the merits and politically. I would wager that not one percent of Americans think the system is “working” when terrorists successfully get bombs onto planes (and succeed in activating them). Probably even fewer think it’s fair that they have to take off their shoes, endure delays and madness while a known Islamic radical — turned in by his own father — can waltz onto a plane (and into the country). DHS had no role whatsoever in assuring that this bomb didn’t go off. By her logic if the bomb had gone off, the system would have “worked” since it has done everything right.

UPDATE: Wait! Wait! This just in: The system does in fact work. Known black Muslim security threats may be getting a pass, but our security forces are still targeting the real threat: they’re going after rich blond women, just the way they should.

Read more...

Laughing At the Left

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Read more...

Quote of the Day

"Christmas is when kids ask Santa Claus for what they want, and adults pay for it. Congressional Sessions are when adults tell congressmen and senators what they want, and their kids pay for it."

-- unknown

Read more...

Obama Exempts INTERPOL from Search and Seizure Restrictions

"Borrowed" from The Patriot Room:

The concept of granting immunity to foreign nationals in our country goes back at least as early as 1790 when we passed "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States," wherein immunity was granted to foreign diplomats. (This Act was revised in 1798 by the (in)famous "Sedition Act.")

The immunities were not as broad as one would think, and that lack of a broad immunity has been tagged as a reason, among many, why the League of Nations failed. In 1945, at the same time as the United Nations was formed, we passed the United States International Organizations Immunities Act. This Act gave foreign diplomats many of the same rights as citizens and permanent residents - to enter into contracts, own real property, etc. Additional rights were given, and in particular was this:

Section 2(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

This section of the Act is the legal force behind all those "diplomatic pouches" we see in movies that cannot be inspected.

Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn't matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here. So we're somewhat stuck - we need to dwell in reciprocity.

The issue has been litigated plenty, with DeLuca v. the United Nations, (41 F.3d 1502 (1994)) being one of the most important of recent vintage. Our courts have consistently upheld the concept of immunity for international organizations - even though to do so leaves an aggrieved American plaintiff with no legal recourse to correct their injury.

Along comes INTERPOL: The International Criminal Police Organization. INTERPOL "facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime."

In 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2(c) (presented in full text above), and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

What does this mean? It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure. The "property and assets of [INTERPOL], wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation."

INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution - in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigatory domestic organizations.

President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law.

Read more...

Prostitutes in Washington

There is an old joke about a man and woman who meet in a bar. The man asks the attractive, young woman, "Would you have sex with me for one million dollars?"

The woman was shocked by the question. Nevertheless, she thought for a moment and finally responded, somewhat reluctantly, in the affirmative. She was not the type to do that sort of thing, but money is always tight, and, after all, a million bucks is a million bucks, she reasoned.

Then the man asked a second question. "Would you have sex with me for fifty bucks?"

Tempted to slap him, the woman was even more shocked than she was by the first question. "Of COURSE NOT!" she insisted. "What kind of woman do you think I am?"

The man replied calmly, "We've already established what kind of woman you are. Now, we are just haggling over the price."

While intended for humor, the story points out an important observation about character. You either have it or you don't. Character can't be bought; not for any price.

Elected officials go to Washington for, primarily, one reason. To do what is in the best interest of the nation within the boundaries of the Constitution. Now, each of them has their own interpretation of what is in the best interest of the country and what the Constitution has to say about that.

There is a group of Democrats who like to call themselves "Blue Dog Democrats." They tell us that they are fiscally conservative and Constitutionally moderate. However, they've all been bought. They are like the young ... uh ... prostitute ... in our story. They have no character. They only have a higher price.

Rush Limbaugh this week just flat out called them prostitutes. He said on his radio program, "Prostitution is now legal in Washington, D.C.," and went on to call out these "Senators of the evening." Rush is right.

There are no fiscally conservative democrats. There are no blue dog democrats. There are only democrats. And democrats see as their function to insert government into every aspect of our daily lives that they can possibly get away with, and then to tax us for the "favor."

I hope these democrats from the so called "red states" and from swing states are taken to the woodshed. They all deserve to be unemployed next year. Unfortunately, it has been my observation that many voters have a memory that is about as long as the evening news program.

Read more...

Constitutionality of Obamacare Challenged

Two republican senators are trying to stop Obamacare on the grounds of constitutionality. Whenever you have the time available, you may want to send Senators DeMint and Ensign handwritten thank you cards for actually possessing the testicular fortitude to stand up and take their oath to the Constitution seriously. (Unlike Harry Reid who wants to make sure that no future congress will be able to change death panel recommendations.)

From Senator DeMint’s senate site:

Ensign, DeMint to Force Vote on Health Care Bill Unconstitutionality

December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.

The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater.

The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”

Read more...