The President of Honduras, a sovereign democratic republic, has violated the rule of law by holding his own personal referendum outside of the scope of his powers as President and those actually upholding the rule of law in Honduras are having the finger pointed at them by our President. How is this in any way acceptable?

This man has the support of ruthless dictators such as Hugo Chavez and Castro, and our President, the one who doesn’t wish to meddle in the affairs of Iran or North Korea… has stepped up to the plate and JOINED the ranks of Chavez and Castro by choosing sides.

Obama has not come out directly and stated “hey I choose this side” but by stepping up and declaring that the arrest of President Zelaya illegal, he has indirectly taken a side.

When Zelaya originally proposed his referendum, he was told that he lacked the power to print and distribute his ballots because Congress had not authorized such an election. So he went to Venezuela and had his ballots printed. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that his ballots were not only unconstitutional, they were illegal and ordered the Honduran military to stand down on any orders pertaining to this illegal balloting. They also stated that anyone distributing these illegal ballots would be arrested.

President Zelaya defies the ruling of the high court and begins distributing his referendum and is arrested by the Honduran military. If you turn on the TV you might think some general with a wild hair up his ass just decided, on a whim, to arrest the President and take over the country.

There is already a successor established and the normal election is still a go… how is this a coup?

Sen. Kerry was speaking to a collection of business and civic leaders when he brought up the South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford issue (at the time of his “joke”, Gov. Sanford hadn’t come clean with the affair). While mentioning that no one was really certain of where he was Kerry added “…too bad, if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’

Can we say tactless and crude? Maybe he should have tossed in a rape joke about Willow.

The last time a sovereign nation attacked Hawaii, the end result was the nuclear devastation of a very large portion of Japan… this time, not so much.

You see, North Korea has put the ball in our court… by hinting at an attack, they want US to strike first, thus allowing them the propaganda they would need to strike back at the mean, old United States.

“It would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to think it can remain unhurt if it ignites the fuse of war on the Korean peninsula.”

In response, President Obama issued a statement to the American people that he “wants to give assurances to the American people that the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted in terms of what might happen.”

Glad to hear we have our stern reprimand letter written and ready to be couriered to the desk of Kim Jong Il, should “something happen”.

Ron Paul produced this 7 min spot on the problems and issues of the looming federalized medical program. (Dr. Paul has practiced medicine for over 30 years… he knows the business)

Yesterday, the RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay sent the head of ABC News a complaint over their special “Prescription for America” asking that they be allowed a segment to provide the viewing public a moment to hear opposition to Obama’s plan to socialize our health care. His request was summarily rejected. There WILL be no opposition.

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

…but the mainstream media ISN’T biased at all…

There are some things that are VERY clear from all of this, the first being that it’s OBVIOUS that von Brunn is a stark raving lunatic. The second being that the press will be digging up his books, movies and magazines and labeling him a “right-wing extremist”, pointing to the infamous memo about those of us on the right that the left are so deathly afraid of. Finally, the anti-gun lobby WILL be gearing up it’s push against guns and will be using von Brunn and his “right-wing” points of view as the poster child for their cause.

“America is a Third-World racial garbage-dump – stupid, ignorant, dead broke, and terminal. Whites LOVE their Enemies. Prepare to die, Whitey.”

– James von Brunn

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Apparently now, if you are an armed combatant or terrorist suspect who is intent on killing or harming US Military officials, or civilians you too could be hearing this warning.

It’s nice to know that someone intent on terrorizing my country will have the right to remain silent until we can pay for his council who will most likely just silence the suspect more than they will on their own.

Representative Pete Hoekstra had this to say in response to the desire to Mirandize terrorist and combatants;

“When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent. It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”

Democrats are back to their same old tricks, treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem that just needs policing. What’s next, hugs and cookies to make them more comfortable?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Racism can be defined as “a belief that a particular race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” (Merriam-Webster)

Making a statement, as one had above that stated (while you were a SITTING Judge) that you felt that your mere existence as a “latina woman” gave you the ability to judge facts against law better than someone who one would categorize as a “white male”, by definition, makes the author of that statement racist. Period.

If I go on record that I feel I can make better judgments as a white male than a black man, hispanic woman, or any other “non-caucasian” individual I would be slapped so hard with every label mankind has ever created, so fast my head would spin… and yet, I’m supposed to shut up and ignore the SAME statement from a Latina Woman.

Lanny Davis seems to think that the White House needs to come out and openly minimize her statement by framing her comment in the favorite Liberal safety net… the “misspeak”

“She misspoke. Every day that goes by that they don’t say she misspoke and she used the wrong words … they just feed it and give it life and give Rush and Hannity more airtime unnecessarily.”

She misspoke? How else does one out themselves as a bigot? Oh… she used the wrong words!!! Well, forgive me! Maybe we should shove a microphone in Sonia’s mug and ask her to rephrase her comments.

Some on the left are even asking that she not simply “rephrase” her statement… she should, wait for it… TAKE IT BACK.

Why not just side step all this “confirmation” bull squeeze that is slowing down the Democrats… they already get to overlook back taxes, killing women by running them into rivers and racist comments. Why let minutiae get in the way of a seat in the Supreme Court. Silly Conservatives!

The first comes in the form of a comment she made back in 2001 in response to the notion that “a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases,” to which she stated;

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

While I would say that each and every person wouldn’t have the same opinions as others because of the diversity of life in the United States, I do have to object on a fundamental level to that mindset. As a judge, you are called upon to view facts and information and apply the law to the facts. No one is asking you to apply your personal opinion on the case and I honestly do not feel ethnicity or gender would play much of a role, if any in the way one applies the law.

The second problem I see with Judge Sotomayor’s viewpoints on judicial procedure comes from a comment made at Duke University in 2005;

…all of the legal defense funds out there. They’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.

Seems this Supreme Court Justice Nominee does not even know how the Judicial System FUNCTIONS in her own country. The courts interpret the law, and apply it to the facts of the case. When the law is not particularly clear on the case at hand, the court may establish a judicial precedent to help other courts dealing with similar cases in applying the rule of law.

Policy is the role of the Legislative Branch of the United States… spin it how you like but my copy of the US Constitution makes no mention of policy creation from inside the Judicial Branch.