The Candid Truth

King+AAYR v. Reilly

2010-06-18T14:03:00.000-07:00

It appears to me that the AAYR are taking sides in the Primary race in District 33, if you read King's latest email. I would like to know where King got the comments from AAYR President Carlotta Capuano about the debate on the 21^st of July. There is nothing on their website with those comments that I could find. Nor is there anything in the events calendar that mentions a debate or possible debate, which I would think would be important for voters to know. How many voters turn out to a regular AAYR club meeting?

The comments appear to be tailor made to benefit King and make Reilly look bad. Details of an email from Reilly to Capuano are even detailed. Does Capuano routinely disclose email information? Was there collusion between Capuano and King in this latest email form the King campaign, or am I just reading too much between the lines. You would think that if they wanted a real debate the AAYR would have it in another forum instead of their regularly scheduled club meeting. I cannot say if King and members of AAYR are working together, however, until questions are answered this looks highly suspicious.

The Kyle Conundrum

2010-02-07T02:22:00.000-08:00

Our world may be a giant hologram.

There is a theory called the "Kyle Conundrum" hereafter referred to as KC, named after common sense theorist David Kyle. At its simplest the KC can be broken down into three primary components.

The first states that a good majority of individuals with many years of formal education and then spend additional time in academia lack common sense, and therefore will invariably come up with an idea that is completely idiotic. It has yet to be determined if they lacked common sense when they began their long academic career or it was in some way leeched out of them from the toxic liberal environment they inhabited.

The second part states that many people who hear these idiotic theories will believe them because of the credentials attached to the individuals proposing the BS.

The third principle suggests that the vast majority of people don't even hear about these absurd theories even with the Internet, which is an open forum for stupidity, nor do they care as it has nothing to do with real life.

A more in-depth explanation of the KC is as follows. It has been firmly established through observation that KC does in fact exists and perhaps is expanding at an accelerating rate proportional to the number of degrees handed out at universities around the world. There has yet to be a correlation shown that individuals with multiple degrees are more likely to state theories publically or quietly keep them to themselves for fear of ridicule by their peers.

Kyle theorizes that the brain cells of these individuals have tiny pockets in them. Voids where common sense should, or used to reside. Whether the common sense was sucked out by some at present unknown force, or it simply left on its on volition because it could no longer tolerate the environment is unknown at this time and needs further study.

Kyle also further theorizes that the voids created by the lack of common sense emit what he calls the stupidity particle. These particles circulate in the brains like free radicals never leaving the confines of the noggin they inhabit. However, as they build up they will reach critical mass at some point and overcome any natural inhibition the individual may have about submitting a stupid theory to a peer-reviewed publication.

While at present there is no device capable of measuring the stupidity particle phenomenon, the after effects of it reaching critical mass can be seen from time to time in stupid theories being made public. Kyle believes that it is more common than is revealed to the public and such theories are circulated around the scientific community. As they gain adherents to them they gather what is known as peer reviewed mass until they are eventually ejected out into an unsuspecting public.

How do we determine what theories fall into the KC? Some are known immediately, like Physicists trying to convince the world that the Bumble Bee cannot fly. Anyone with even a shred of common sense that had observed a bumble bee flying would know immediately that this was outright stupidity.

Another example of KC can be seen in Global Warming theory that took hold briefly, but is finally beginning to unravel. Everyone with common sense knew that it was hogwash, yet the so called "best and brightest" of the world stated emphatically that man was heating up the world and it was only a matter of time before we were all doomed.

There are of course many examples that demonstrate KC but will never be proven false or at least not in the lifetime of the individual making the wild claim. Examples of these are the Big Bang, Black Holes, life grew on earth on the backs of crystals, and that we live in a Holographic World.

Bloodmoney Film

2009-08-22T06:27:00.000-07:00

Some people might wonder why I have not done much blogging over the last year or so, some might actually be happy about it. I have been working on a documentary film on abortion and that has taken up a great amount of my time and energy. We are in the final stages right now and hope to have it complete in the next month. Yesterday we released the trailer for the film, which is called "Bloodmoney: The Business of Abortion". Please take a look and I would be interested in any thoughts you might have.

Common Law v. Case Law

2009-06-28T11:24:00.000-07:00

Here is a conversation that I had on Facebook about the common law and case law. I have taken out the friends name and the name of the person I was discussing it with. I am posting it as I think it is worth knowing. Like the Law Student involved, I am sure my other lawyer friend's will disagree with my position, but I have no problem with people being wrong. While I agree that case law is what is used today, it is not a system of law that our founders understood nor would they agree with it. When Langdell began this system it took other law school well over a decade to begin teaching it. It would be of interest to find out if it was in fact any of his students that brought it to the other schools. It has been modified to take out the multiple posting tags and I made a couple of corrections to spelling errors in my responses.

Friend: I got an issue of first impression today. I may leave a mark on Maryland case law today. :) Thu at 3:32

David K Kyle at 4:04pm June 25

How many times do I have to tell, "Case law" is a figment of the lawyers imaginations. There was no such thing as case law to our founders.

Law Student at 4:16pm June 25

Not true. The English common law, for instance—largely adopted by our Founders and still enshrined in many parts of American law—is case law

Friend at 4:17pm June 25

I have been confused about that for a long time. What is the difference between common law and case law?

Law Student at 4:28pm June 25

Common law, according to Black’s is “[t]he body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; caselaw.” Common law and case law are essentially the same thing.

To say that there was no case law at the time of the founding is to say that there was no law outside of statutes and Constitutions, and that is undoubtedly untrue. The English common law was highly influential during that time, and largely adopted throughout the new nation. Even today, large portions of tort law, contract law, etc., are derived from English common law adopted during the birth of the U.S.

It is, however, largely true (with a few exceptions) that there is no such thing as FEDERAL common law today. However, that wasn’t always the case. Moreover, common law (case law) has been a significant component of state law from the very beginning.

David K Kyle at 8:33pm June 25

Judicial decision that stood the test of time and were ruled in the same way time and again. Case law is what is said by the court once. There is a big difference I would suggest you go reread your Blackstone. Common law and case law are two completely different things period. They are only similar in the minds of people that do not know. Case law can be changed at the whim of a judge, common law can only be changed by statute according to the founders!

Law Student at 9:06pm June 25

I suggest you offer citations for your assertions. Never have I seen a definition of “case law” that confines that term to “what is said by the court once.” Nor is it true that courts are incapable of modifying the common law. Should it choose to do so, there is nothing preventing a state’s highest court from modifying the common law. The legislature is free, of course, to step in and reverse a court’s modification of common law, but there’s nothing to prevent a high court from modifying the common law in the absence of legislative intervention. If you disagree, what, pray tell, would prevent a state’s high court from doing so? Recall that the common law itself is judge-made law, and that the common law rules which are now so ingrained in our law began as rulings “said by the court once.”

Example of courts abrogating the common law: In tort law, the old common law “rule of sevens” held that children are generally considered capable of tortious behavior according to the following guidelines: children under seven are considered incapable of torts; children between the ages of seven and fourteen are PRESUMED to be INCAPABLE of torts; and children over fourteen are PRESUMED to be CAPABLE of torts. However, the high courts of several states have rejected the old common law rule in favor of a subjective standard which says that negligent children are to be held to the same standard of care of a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, and experience, except in cases involving inherently dangerous activities, in which case children are held to an adult standard of care.

Citation for my previous post: See, e.g., Robinson v. Lindsay, 598 P.2d 392 (Wash. 1979) (noting that the COURTS of several jurisdictions “have created an exception to the special child standard because of the apparent injustice that would occur if a child who caused injury while engaged in certain dangerous activities were permitted to defend himself by saying that other children similarly situated would not have exercised a degree of care higher than his, and he is, therefore, not liable for his tort”).

David K Kyle at 12:08am June 26

The courts ability to modify the common law is only a recent discovery by them. Here in MD it was done in the 70's. Read the founders, they were explicit that it is only the legislature that can change the common law. Read MD DofR art 5 to give an example of this. "That the antient collection of unwritten maxims and customs, which is called the common law" Blackstone. The common law did not come from judges but was carried out by them on a steady unwavering course from time immemorially. Hmm when is your court citation from when the court said it can change the common law? Oh yeah 1979, yes it was in the seventies when they said the same thing here in Maryland. Now find me a case where they said they could do it before 1950. If I have the time I will find where the framers said changes to the common law are the business of the legislature.

Now what does Blackstone regarding learning the law and precedent. "the least variation from established precedents will totally distract and bewilder him." A student like Caleb can learn something in case law last month and even write a paper on it and the following month a SC can change it, therefore what he has learned as the "law" is no longer the law. The founders believed in the law being absolute. That is no longer the case. In fact look at Roe. People are worried about a change in the "precedent" of Roe with a change in the makeup of the court. Of course in the case of Roe the court changed long standing of precedent of abortion. Then in Doe v. Bolton they changed the who knows how long precedent of abortion being illegal under the common law after quickening.

It is also a fact that there is a service that lawyers can get that tells them what "case law" is no longer valid. There again what could be used at one time is no longer valid. The system of law today is a joke as it vacillates all over the place at times solely just because of the type of person that gets put on the bench. "For it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation; as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady…" Blackstone.

Although I have to say that the one thing where the courts do have a say in the common law is in what applies to us here. As many parts of the common law deal with the King and the church which of course would not apply and therefore have no force in our laws. That is where the founders believed our courts had a jurisdiction when dealing with the common law.

"Edward the Confessor, out of the former laws (Molmutius's law, Mercian law, West-Saxon law, Dane law) composed that which we now call the common law. These laws were only general customs observed through the nation, which for that reason were called Common… At present the law of England is divided into three parts.

1.Common law, which is the most ancient and general law of the realm. 2. Statutes, or acts of parliament. And 3. Particular customs." – Cunningham's Law dictionary, the dictionary of choice of the founders. This is not to say that judges didn't rule on these laws, but the point is that any judge given the same set of circumstances will come to the exact same conclusions if they follow the law. They can't deviate from it because they think society is changing, or they feel they need to do social experiments. They can reject a law that violates the Constitution but they then can't substitute something in its place as they so often do.

About your comment "Never have I seen a definition of “case law” that confines that term to “what is said by the court once.”" Are you telling me when the SC hands down a decision that it then does not become case law? Are you sure you want to make that statement?

Law Student at 8:01am June 26

None of the quotes you offer sheds light on the central question here—whether the common law is a form of “case law,” an umbrella term referring to judge-made law, which is precisely what the common law is—nor do any of your citations state in any express manner that the courts of today are somehow incapable of legitimately modifying the common law. You even go so far as to concede that courts ARE capable of determining which components of the common law—e.g., those involving references to the King or the Church—no longer hold force today, a concession that seems not inconsistent with the notion that today’s courts have a role in determining, perhaps for modern policy reasons that did not apply 200+ years ago, that the common law should be modified under certain circumstances.

It also defies simple logic to suggest that we are somehow bound by non-legislative, judge-made law promulgated centuries ago, but that similar decisions by modern judges, who are presumably more in touch with the realities of the modern world, are somehow invalid. For what reason should we be bound by that assertion, one that, even if some of the Framers subscribed to it (and that is far from established here), was not in any way enshrined in our federal Constitution.

I also detect in your posts an ideological or political belt that is generally unhelpful in answering questions of this sort. That is something, I suspect, that you might be able to cure with a bit more open-mindedness and perhaps some legal training.

Finally, regarding your last point, I never suggested that a single decision by the Supreme Court (or the high court of a state) is somehow not case law. Rather, I asserted only that the definition of case law is not limited to single decisions by legitimate tribunals. The term "case law" applies not only to single decisions by courts, but also to the extent to which subsequent decisions by those courts and others affirm and/or reverse prior decisions.

David K Kyle at 8:57am June 26

There is a huge difference in a court determining what part of the common law applies here in the states from that of GB and changing those parts of the common law that apply to us. Read MD DofR art 5. If you cannot see that I would have to say you have been to law school and don't want to reject what you have been taught.

My ideology is towards the Constitution as given to us by the founders. Determining their intent has nothing to do with my political leanings. Facts are facts. Have you ever read Blackstone, or do you just think you know what he says from what others have written about him?

Let me put this simply so you can understand. The common law is an unwavering expounding of the law from the courts ruling on what was established as law, not by them but by who made the law. Blackstone says "the decisions of courts of justice are the evidence of what is common law," "established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions." There is a difference in being evidence of something and making something. Blackstone is also clear that it is not the right of judges to change the common law except in two cases, where it is contrary to reason or violates divine law. And when he says change he means to revert back to what it was after either a ruling from a judge that violates the common law or a change by Parliament.

You quote Black's dictionary which the first edition came out in 1891 after Christopher Langdell instituted his case law method in the 1870's. How did lawyers learn the law prior to that? By studying Blackstone's works or through Americanized editions like Tuckers and by apprenticeship.

I quote the Law dictionary the founders used for their understanding of what the common law is and you reject it because it does not conform to what you have been taught. Who is being closed minded here? Check out Bouviers Law dictionary of 1856, you will find no entry for "case law" nor will you find it in Cunningham's the one the founders used and the one that Thomas Jefferson recommended for every gentleman's library.

Here is a vague reference to statute changing common law that I could find in the time I have "Is it to be the common law with or without the British statutes? If without the statutory amendments, the vices of the code would be insupportable." Madison on the Virginia Resolution.

Law Student at 10:29am June 26

I will contribute to this discussion one more round of comments and then call it a day …

You say that your beliefs are grounded in the Constitution, but you then rely not on that document, but rather on Blackstone and other materials that, at best, constitute persuasive—as opposed to binding—authority.

Moreover, your argument that the common law is somehow not judge-made law is entirely unavailing. You note that “Blackstone says, ‘[T]he decisions of courts of justice are the evidence of what is common law, . . . established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions.’” That’s just another way of saying that judges “made” the common law based on their interpretation of what was “customary” at the time.

Finally, I will note that your arguments—however persuasive (or not) they may have seemed to now-dead gentlemen who lived in the nineteenth century and earlier—were lost long ago. The rules you describe are not those we live under today; they are, quite simply, not “the law” in the modern age. And how this all grew out of Caleb’s entirely benign assertion that his work might have an impact on Maryland “case law,” I do not know, other than to say that your blunt assertion that “‘case law’ is a figment of the lawyers [sic] imaginations” was a silly and uninformed statement that demanded a response. “Case law” is not a controversial term, and is one that is simply used to describe judge-made law, a reality that has been a part of the Anglo-American tradition for several centuries.

David K Kyle at 5:14pm June 26

I use Blackstone to make my points about common law and case law because it is what the founders used to understand what the common law and law was. In the Virginia Ratification debates Madison said it was the book in everyone's hands. Abe Lincoln learned the law from reading what? Blackstone as did generations of lawyers in America until Langdell came up with the case law method that took almost 20 years to be taught at another law school other than Harvard. I do find it ironic that you seem hell bent on the method of law you were taught when it was started by an unknown lawyer who did not have vast experience in the law, but only thought he knew a better way to teach it. Also if you would have read Blackstone you would know that various parts of the Constitution are taken from those commentaries, so quoting Blackstone is applicable.

Now what is evidence? It is not the crime itself just as it is not the law. Evidence points to a crime or shows who might have committed the crime but it is not the crime itself. Blackstone uses evidence because judicial decisions should point to what the law is as intended by the framers of the law. It does not mean that they made the law only followed the law as judges are supposed to do. By your logic, when a judge confirms or follows a law passed by a legislature he is the one making the law which is absurd, he is only confirming the law.

What I find odd in your argument is that because the law was understood to operate one way by people now long dead it is no longer relevant. By the rules of interpretation given to us by the Framers we must interpret the Constitution by the intent of those that wrote it, not by what modern man thinks. Let's take the 14th amendment as an example. For 70 years it did not make the Bill of Rights apply to the states and case after case confirmed this. Then we have the beginnings of the incorporation doctrine where judges begin to selectively apply it to fit the results they want. Sometimes it is used at other times it is not. At first it is one of the bill of rights then another to we have what we have today. Did the intent of the framers of that amendment change or did the judges in how they applied the law?

I will agree that case law is not a controversial term now, but was unheard of until near the end of the 18th century with Langdell's creation.

While the Framers gave us only one law making branch of government, you now assert there are two. While you weave through my arguments, you fail to refute them expect to say that what dead men think no longer counts.

You call my statement silly but to do so you have to ignore the facts I present, and I will take it that you have never read Blackstone, the Federalist Papers or any of the ratification debates, if you had maybe you would have a better understanding of how the founders viewed law. The ironic thing is that you will blindly follow a dead judge, but not the person that made the law.

However, I can see that we will have to agree to disagree which is a common thing from lawyers that want to ignore the facts.

Law Student at 9:57am June 27

Dude, the bottom line is that there are three points you simply cannot legitimately refute here.

First, the common law is judge-made law, and thus “case law.” You can say that it originated long ago, that it has largely stood the test of time, that it is based in custom, or that it is derived from divine law (a rather dubious assertion, in my book), but you cannot escape the fact that it was created by judges, and not by legislatures. Repeat after me: The common law is judge-made law, the common law is judge-made law, the common law is judge-made law …

Second, many, if not most, of your arguments regarding framers’ intent were lost long ago. You may tilt at windmills all you like, but the fact of the matter is that your views do not generally reflect what “the law” is today. Time to move on …

Third, and finally, you disparage lawyers, law schools, and legal education generally, yet without acknowledging that the primary purpose of a legal education is to prepare a lawyer to do his or her job, which is to zealously advocate for the interests of his/her client under the law as it stands today—and not as dreamers or ideologues would like the law to be. Were I to enter a courtroom today and attempt to represent a client by quoting Blackstone ad nauseam, or by calling for the reversal of the incorporation doctrine, or by aggressively expounding upon the views of the framers, I would be guilty of incompetence at best, and malpractice at worst. I would almost certainly lose, and thus do a great injustice to my client.

I’m out—for real this time. Enjoy those windmills, my friend. Tilt away …

David K Kyle at 12:57pm June 28

As final proof that I am correct consider the following and I could offer more, but in the interest of keeping it brief I will refrain from doing so.

"This Common Law, though the Usage, Practice and Decisions of the King's Courts of Justice may expound and evidence it, and be of great Use to illustrate and explain it; yet it cannot be authoritatively altered or changed but by Act of Parliament." - The History of the Common Law of England, Matthew Hale, 1713.

Statues also are either declaratory of the common law, or remedial of some defects therein…Remedial statutes are those which are made to supply such defects, and abridge such superfluities, in the common law, as arise either from the general imperfection of all human laws, from change of time and circumstances, from the mistakes and unadvised determinations of unlearned judges… Remedial statutes are those which are made to supply such defects, and abridge such superfluities, in the common law, as arise either from the general imperfection of all human laws, from change of time and circumstances, from the mistakes and unadvised determinations of unlearned judges." – Blackstone.

The Hale explanation seems to be self-explanatory. So if we take a look at the one by Blackstone, what does that tell us. If in fact the common law came from the rulings of judges, which would they not be empowered to change it. Even a small defect according to Blackstone must be done through an Act of Parliament. It would make no sense whatsoever that if judges made the law they could not correct even its smallest defect. Blackstone even makes the observance that acts of Parliament are needed to correct the common law when judges make mistakes in determining what the common law is. If the common law was the same as case law there would be no need for this is it came from the very judges Parliament is trying to correct.

Blackstone was also clear in the role of the courts when determining the common law. "what before was uncertain, and perhaps indifferent, is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or vary from, according to his own private sentiments: he being sworn to determine not according to his private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one." This is at direct odds to what case law is today.

All of the evidence I have presented proves beyond a doubt that common law and case law are two completely separate and distinct systems. One the common law is actually based on law, while case law is based on judicial whim. Case law is a system where judges are not bound by the law but by what they think the law should be which is a far cry in how the Framers of our government provided. They knew the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three, now it is the strongest. The modern system of case law has turned our system of government on its head. We no longer have the rule of law, but the rule of judges.

I find it amusing that you justify what is going on today because that is what is taught in law schools. You ignore the foundations of our government because it no longer applies. Who says it no longer applies, the lawyers. The ones that have benefited from it becoming the system it has become. So in your view a dictator has every right to ignore what he is doing by saying that was the old way, this is the new one, so therefore it is good. Why don't you just go ahead and say the Constitution is dead because that is in fact what you are telling me. The only problem is you and every lawyer out there, along with the ones who wear black robes wont say it because then the citizens would take notice. Instead you pretend to obey the system handed down to us by the founders and thumb your nose at it when no one is looking.

I have refuted your notion that common law is judge made law numerous times, the problem is you hold onto what you were taught, because you have to. While I offer more proof today I can see it will do no good because you refuse to believe the facts and the truth because it goes against your worldview on what law is or should be or pretends to be. The fact is I am right. You offer no proof whatsoever to your point of view other than to tell me those old guys are dead and this is the modern way.

I just have to wonder if you get your definition of the common law from Wikipedia.

Pretend Outrage, Real Cowardice.

2009-06-27T07:00:00.001-07:00

I am absolutely outraged at the pretended outrage by the Democrats over the comments of the Little Old Lady from Anne Arundel County (I really wish she lived in Pasadena). Okay so I am not outraged, I have come to expect nothing less from those on the left as their double standards know no bounds. They can do and say as they please. Here in Maryland they can say they want bury us ten feet deep, they can call our black leaders Uncle Tom's, with nary a peep from the pretend outrage crowd. So this little old lady makes a comparison to the tactics used by the German Military to overwhelm their enemy (never mistake that Democrats view Republicans as their enemy even though they only make feeble attempts to stand in their way at times). This comparison gets blown way out of proportion so that the Democrats can shift the argument from what is good for the country, to how evil and vile this old lady is for daring to speak her mind.

Not only do we have the pretended outrage, but it appears we have real threats of violence against a whole group of Republican women. I don't know if it has reached the Rape of Nanking level, but I would be interested in seeing these emails that have these poor women so frightened that they are going to drop out of the Annapolis parade.

What we are witnessing is the terror tactics of the left to frighten the populace to not say a negative thing about their Dear Leader. God forbid that someone have a different opinion. They can't have that, all dissent must be silenced through intimidation and threats if necessary. Those on the left are perfectly willing to vilify and destroy any that oppose them and Republicans had better wake up to this fact. There is no compromising with them, because they will only do so to gain an advantage. There is no reasoning with them, because you can't reason with people that are unreasonable. The left uses pretend outrage, and real threats in order to achieve their objectives, which is the complete socialization of the United States. They want the government to control every aspect of our lives. They believe in the ultimate power of the state and that rights come from the state and is given to the people, the exact opposite of what our founders believed.

What do we have as Republicans standing in the way to this massive shift in power from the government? Spineless, gutless, real cowards who bow and scrape to the Democrats in power in the vain hope that they will be allowed to continue in their positions if they don't offend the powers that be. Our spineless so called Republican leaders play right into the hands of those on the left that seek to destroy any Republican that stands up for what the believe, for what they feel, what they think. Like good little lapdogs these cowardly Republicans attack when the left says attack and they attack the very people that helped elect them to office. These are not the leaders we need, and we should not even call them leaders because that they certainly are not. These Republican office holders need to be removed from office at the first opportunity we have and replace them with people that will stand up for the principles this nation was founded upon.

The question is how many real Republicans are out there that are willing to take back the party not only for ourselves, but our children, and grandchildren? Or are we going to let this great nation and its founding principles slide into oblivion? To borrow from Winston Churchill, "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…" because if we do, the country we grew up in is doomed forever to be changed into something unrecognizable to our forefathers. The Republic will be dead.

When Swine Flu Over the Cuckoo' s Nest.

2009-04-28T17:45:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not the head of the Department of Homeland security is talking about pigs. You would think she would have more important things to worry about than the feelings of pigs because we call Swine Flu, Swine Flu. I guess it is making the pigs feel bad that they are being associated with this killer virus.

This in my opinion really shows the utter stupidity and downright silliness of our government. Just to make it clear I am not blaming Obama for this so all of his sycophants can calm down and relax at least until you get to paragraph six, then you have my permission to blow a cog and pound your noodle noggin against the wall in frustration that someone is attacking your Dear Leader.

Just so we don't offend anyone, or at least anyone that matters, maybe we should rename it "Whiteman Flu", or "Christian Flu", or "Republican Flu". Any of these names would ensure that even if one of these groups were offended by the name, it wouldn't matter because the press wouldn't say anything negative about it. We know the Democrats wouldn't say anything, but are praying, oops sorry they are not praying, they are sacrificing the unborn in the hopes that it is called the "Republican Flu".

Even if you could find a white man to complain as it is just a name, it wouldn't matter because white men are open fair game for anything and everything you cannot even think about with other groups.

If Christians complain, it wouldn't matter because who cares what a bunch of ignorant knuckle draggers think, and who in power would listen to them anyway. What they think and say is irrelevant to those now in control.

We know Republicans won't say anything because they are too afraid to challenge the double standard that exists between them and Democrats. Because they are so afraid of being attacked and labeled something negative by rabid liberals, they just tuck their tails between their legs and shuffle off to the next committee meeting , where the Democrats trick them into believing their input does matter by letting them into the room.

Personally, I would call it "Obama Flu". Why would I dare suggest that name? Well, if there was one thing I have learned over the last eight years, it's this. No matter what it is, no matter how small, and insignificant something might seem, if it is even the tiniest bit bad for anyone other than white men, Christians, or Republicans, it's the Presidents fault. To the Dems', if little Johnny got an F on his math test, George Bush without a doubt was to blame. So using this precedent, and all us pro-lifers know how much the Democrats love precedent, it must be Obama's fault. It just has to be, because after all, he is the President.

I know this makes me a racist, hatemongering, right wing nut job fanatic who is on the fast track to getting labeled a terrorists and being thrown in jail because I believe in the Constitution, but hey I just call them as I see them. My new motto is, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

This post was inspired and sponsored by "Sheer Stupidity."

AG Holder is an Idiot.

2009-02-18T10:53:00.000-08:00

Racism cannot be discussed in this country, because if you do not hold a politically correct view you are automatically branded a racist. Everyone with half a brain knows that the PC view comes from the liberals and their do what I say, think what I think or we will demonize you policy. It is pathetic that the Attorney General of the United States would sink this low and make this comment, but then can we expect anything less considering who his boss is? We also know that if a white Republican had said this all hell would have broken loose by now. The press would be in a feeding frenzy, at least those left, who had yet to join the Obama administration as the payoff for their helping to put him into office.

I think Holder should be forced like Trent Lott to go around to all white organizations and apologize repeatedly for what he said. Oh, wait a minute there aren’t that many because they would be deemed racist. Maybe he should go to the White entertainment channel, oh wait a minute I don’t think they have one of those either. Well maybe he could be a Judge and make an apology at the Miss White America pageant…

Maybe we can just forget the whole thing, after all, is his opinion really relevant to most Americans? The problem with Mr. Holder and those that think like him is that they still see color. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream has not been achieved even with the buying of the Presidency by Obama and his allies in the press. Using Reverend King’s standard I would never associate with Holder because his comments show a serious lacking in the content of his heart, and a total lack of content of the mind. Besides, who is the coward for waiting until he was already Attorney General before making such an idiotic comment?

Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters
By DEVLIN BARRETT. AP news
WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.
In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," said Holder, nation's first black attorney general.
Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters.
"It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."
He told Justice Department employees they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

Burris the Liar.

2009-02-15T14:31:00.000-08:00

Burris is a liar and should be kicked out of the Senate. This proves that the Senate Democrats should have held their ground in not admitting him to the Senate. This is also a major embarrassment for Obama who flip flopped on the issue. Of course if this had been a Republican the press would have hanged him by now.

Obamania

2009-01-20T07:44:00.000-08:00

From my reading the past couple of days, I have to think I am the only person in this country not ready to kiss the feet of the new messiah. The way the news media is writing it, every single person in America and I should also say the world is ready to serve the new king. If we are to believe the stories being written, there is not a person in America that isn't ready to pee their pants in excitement.
There are only two possibilities for this occurrence. One is that I am the only sane person in America, possibly the world. Second is that the press in America is completely delusional and are writing fantasy stories instead of real news. Instead of being the watchdogs of the government, they have become the cheerleaders for Obama. They have prostituted themselves to a man at the expense of truth, and it is the American public that will be the ones that potentially suffer because of their zeal for one candidate. When I read this I nearly fell out of my chair, "Obama, whom some have called the greatest orator of his generation." I'm thinking what the hell is this person talking about. Have you heard him speak when there is no teleprompter in front of him? There are so many "uhhs" he makes me believe that I'm a great public speaker.
Our Founders believed the Press would the guardians of truth, ready to expose it, so that the public would know what was happening in their government. We the citizens can no longer count on the press to do this. "Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light."- T. Jefferson. It should be clear to anyone that looks at what happened in this election that the press can no longer be trusted. We no longer have true journalists that can put aside their own personal views to inform the public. The editorial page has taken over the whole paper. Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with a paper endorsing a candidate, but when they do so at the expense of the truth, it is wrong.
What should make this election historic is not because a black man was elected to office, but because a man was elected to office with the collusion of much of the press in this country. Not that this is the only reason. Republicans put forth a pathetic candidate. How he managed to make it through the primary is baffling. Then of course, the six hundred million pound elephant, or jackass, was a tremendous obstacle to overcome even if the Republicans had put forth a viable candidate. We all know elections can be bought, and those that have the most money usually end up winning. Our whole election process has become a joke in so many ways. Anyway, I am straying from my original reason for writing this.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes before people start to realize that Obama is not a miracle worker and that he can't walk on water, and that he is not going to pave the streets of America with gold.
I would also like to point out that the symbolism of him using Lincoln's bible is rather striking. While I know all you Republicans out there love Lincoln, he was a tyrant and the biggest Constitutional violator we have ever had as a President. The myth of the man that freed no slaves is bigger than the actual person he was, much like Obama. Unfortunately, with Obama, the myth has been grown and pushed along by the press while the man is still alive and yet to have accomplishment that has been a benefit to anyone but himself.
However, I for one do not expect much from a man that believes a child born from a botched abortion should be left to die. I am sure there are other bright points of light out there in the current darkness that don't believe the hype and have not been deluded into believing that Christ has returned.

Folded Under Pressure

2009-01-15T20:33:00.000-08:00

Once again we see when the Elected Officials declare the Constitution is dead and what the courts say goes. For one brief moment the Democrats in the Senate had my support. Like all politicians they have caved in and failed to follow through on what they said they would do and more importantly had the power and Constitutional authority to do.
Should it surprise me when Congress failed to stand up to a measly judge in the Terri Schiavo? No I guess not, maybe I just keep naively expecting politicians to keep their word when it comes to things that really matter.

Should We Expect Anything Different.

2009-01-14T13:09:00.001-08:00

How pathetic that Bush declares a state of emergency in DC to use it to pay an outrageous sum for an inauguration. At a time when individual Americans are in financial trouble, the coronation of the Chosen One is deemed so important that something that is supposed to be used for disaster relief is invoked. Of course, maybe it is the warning bell for the coming disaster. The disaster is not because Obama is about to become President, it is because the United States is in decline because of who We the People have elected into office at all levels of government. It is also not to be placed on the shoulders of those recently in power, but a decline that has been going on for some a good number of years.
Bush's action with declaring a state of emergency just go to point out that no one in office has the slightest clue to what our founders considered the proper spending of government to be. In wasting these huge sums of money on unconstitutional spending, they are draining the finances of the taxpayer. We are burdened with paying for the government employees who feed from the trough of stolen money the taxpayer many of them making more than the average taxpayer. Abraham Lincoln called wages the property of those that are earned it. We see our "property" taken through coercion and intimidation, only to be used for things that are outside the bounds of the proper role of our government. While I voted for Bush twice, I believe he has failed in his duty as President on so many levels. This highly dubious action on his part now fittingly points to his supreme failure, the wasting of trillions of dollars of Property taken through the threat of force. Will we the people ever stand up and begin to say no? It is hard to say, somehow I doubt it. Maybe one day a majority of people will find the courage and stand up to the thieves and the liars.

Harry Reid v. The Stupidity of the WSJ.

2009-01-03T18:26:00.000-08:00

Harry Reid and the Senate have every right to not seat Burris, no matter what the Supreme Court said in 1969. The Court was wrong, and Congress is not obligated to follow a court opinion that is contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution gives them the sole right to refuse to seat anyone they judge should not be in the Senate. The Supreme Court has no say in this matter, and that's perfectly clear by Article 1 section 5. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,"

The Justices of the Supreme Court cannot intervene as it would be a usurpation of power and unconstitutional. What the Court did in Powell v. McCormack was wrong and their reasoning in that opinion is idiotic. If the Senate has the sole Constitutional power to judge elections, returns and qualifications, it is illogical that they would have to admit someone into the Senate, just to vote to get them out. The Court made up something never contemplated by the Framers. They took two separate and distinct powers of the Senate and combined them into a rule that did not exist until they pulled it out of their infamous Constitutional penumbra. If looked at with just a once of common sense one would see right through the stupidity and arrogance of the Court in Powell. If someone is unqualified or unfit to be in the Senate, why would the Senate have to seat them, just so they could kick them out with a two-thirds vote? It makes absolutely no sense at all and that clearly was not the intent of the Framers. When the Senate kicked out Albert Gallatin in 1794, they did not use the two thirds vote the Court has set in Powell, because it had nothing to do with disorderly behavior, but with his qualifications. A two-thirds vote is not needed to keep Burris from permanently holding the Senate seat as this is not about his behavior. This a problem with his appointment, which would fall squarely into Election, Returns and Qualification to be a US Senator.

"It is obvious, that a power must be lodged somewhere to judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of the members of each house composing the
legislature; for otherwise there could be no certainty, as to who were
legitimately chosen members, and any intruder, or usurper, might claim a seat,
and thus trample upon the rights, and privileges, and liberties of the people.
Indeed, elections would become, under such circumstances, a mere mockery; and
legislation the exercise of sovereignty by any self-constituted body. The only
possible question on such a subject is, as to the body, in which such a power
shall be lodged. If lodged in any other, than the legislative body itself, its
independence, its purity, and even its existence and action may be destroyed, or
put into imminent danger. No other body, but itself, can have the same motives
to preserve and perpetuate these attributes; no other body can be so perpetually
watchful to guard its own rights and privileges from infringement, to purify and
vindicate its own character, and to preserve the rights, and sustain the free
choice of its constituents. Accordingly, the power has always been lodged in the
legislative body by the uniform practice of England and America." - J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution § 831.

Just as a reminder to everyone that seems to have forgotten. We have three branches of Government. They are coequal, which means one branch can't order the other to do something that is contrary to the Constitution, which they all took an oath to uphold and defend.

After the Civil War, large numbers of Southern elected members of Congress were refused their seats without the absurd method created by the Supreme Court. If sixty can be refused in one Congress alone without having to seat them first, then expel, one person can be refused a seat now. It is perfectly constitutional for the Senate to refuse him a seat regardless of what the Supreme Court in 1968 said, or what the current Court might have to say. The Supreme Court has no business sticking its nose in a duty that is the sole privilege of the Senate. Any method of seating Mr. Burris in the Senate against the permission of the Senate, is unconstitutional.

Never thought I would ever say this in my life, but "Go Harry Reid and all you Democrat up in the Senate."

Harry Reid v. the Constitution
If Roland Burris isn't fit for the Senate, how is Chris Dodd?

An Illinois court will eventually decide if Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of corruption. But on at least one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats: the seating of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to represent Illinois on Tuesday, ahead of the official start of the 111th Congress next week. This was certainly an act of brash defiance given that nearly everyone had warned the Governor not to do so after he was heard on tape contemplating the sale of the seat for personal gain. But under Illinois law, Mr. Blagojevich had every legal right to do so.
As the Governor said in his announcement, the Illinois public also deserves its full measure of representation in Washington. Mr. Burris is a former state attorney general who is untainted by the charges against Mr. Blagojevich. After the Blagojevich tapes were made public, Democrats who run the state legislature said they'd pass a law to require a special election for the Senate. But their passion for that option ebbed when it became clear that a Republican could win, especially amid this Democratic fiasco. When the legislature failed to act, Mr. Blagojevich saw his opening to name Mr. Burris.
Meanwhile, Mr. Reid and Washington Democrats are refusing to seat Mr. Burris, never mind their lack of authority to do so. As an initial matter, they're hiding behind the Illinois secretary of state, who is refusing to certify the appointment. But Mr. Burris has asked a court to order the secretary of state to carry out what under state law would typically be a nondiscretionary duty. In any event, Beltway Democrats can't inject themselves into what is clearly a matter of Illinois law.
The legal precedent here is the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell had been accused of corruption but was nonetheless re-elected in 1966. House Democrats declined to seat him, Powell sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in denying him his seat. Congress could have expelled Powell with a two-thirds vote, as stipulated in the Constitution, but it couldn't deny him the seat in the first instance.
While the Constitution says the Senate can determine its own membership, the Court in Powell interpreted Article I, Section 5 to say that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "qualification" saying that a Senator must not have been appointed by an embarrassing Illinois Governor.
Mr. Reid is also attempting the dodge of referring the matter to the Senate Rules Committee, which is run by Democrats, but the Powell precedent ought to be clear even to political lawyers. If Mr. Reid wants to banish Mr. Burris, he must first seat him and then persuade two-thirds of the Senate to expel him. Needless to say, the last thing Mr. Reid wants to do is create turmoil in his party by expelling an African-American Democrat whose only offense has been to accept an appointment to serve. But if Mr. Reid does go that route, we'd suggest worthier expulsion possibilities, such as Connecticut's Chris Dodd, who received sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial while sitting on the Banking Committee.
Republicans want Illinois to hold a special election for the vacant seat, and we recommended that ourselves (as did Mr. Obama) when the Blagojevich tapes first became public. But now that Mr. Burris has been appointed, Mr. Reid can't legally deny him his seat. If this is the way Democrats are going to use their new monopoly on Beltway power even against a member of their own party, we're in for an ugly couple of years.

Gift Certificates for a Lifetime of Depression, Torment, and Guilt.

2008-11-29T10:33:00.000-08:00

In the last five months I have interviewed many woman that have had an abortion and have had to deal with the effects of that decision. Most thought that they were taking care of a problem only to find that it compounded the problems of their lives. Yes, they might not have to deal with a young child, but they suffered with a constant feeling of guilt of that choice. Some did not realize the depression and other problems they were going through was a result of the abortion. It was only years later that they came to understand where their problems originated and finally knowing they had made a tragic mistake.

Abortion is not the easy way out as Planned Parenthood and other organizations say. It will shackle you with a lifetime of problems whether you realize it or not. Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing babies to make money and they could careless of the consequences for women. They know abortion is harmful to a woman's emotional and physical well-being. They know the horrific results of what women do and how they change after an abortion. Yet, because they are in the business of making money, vast quantities of it, they will take the money and throw the woman to the curb.

If you love and care for a person, you don’t want to buy them a Planned Parenthood gift certificate. The last thing you would want for them is to have an abortion. It will destroy their lives, and many times destroys the relationship, and can destroy families.

If Planned Parenthood was so concerned about women's health, why wouldn't they offer their services at little or no cost? With the billions of dollars they have made from murdering babies and traumatizing women I am sure they can afford it.

For more information visit Silent No More or Rachel's Vineyard

Planned Parenthood offers gift vouchers
Sean Lengell

Indiana residents in need of a quick stocking stuffer this holiday season have an unusual option: Planned Parenthood gift certificates.
The group's Hoosier State chapter on Wednesday began selling gift certificates redeemable at any of its 35 facilities for any service provided -- from basic health screenings to birth control to abortions.
Betty Cockrum, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said the program was initiated in response to the state's ailing economy.
"Our patients are principally low-income women, and so, needless to say, those patients are more challenged now than ever," Ms. Cockrum said. "We find that when women are [financially] strapped, they're more worried about putting food on the table and gas in their car, and their health care is often put by the wayside."

Vote Fraud.

2008-10-16T09:18:00.001-07:00

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain there is going to be massive vote fraud in this coming election.

Having personally witnessed a car with three people going to three different polls in the 2004 election, I know it takes place. At the third polling place I went to the Head Judge and pointed them out. Two of them saw me and frantically tried to get the third to leave the table where he was already giving his name(or fake name) to vote. Because of my challenge they made him cast a provisional ballot. There is no way of knowing how many times these people voted before being caught. The car was registered to a person in Crofton, and there are many precincts between there and Pasadena.

The common sense approach to prevent fraud is the requirement to present an ID when you vote. The Democrats don’t want voter ID laws because it means they can’t send people around the state voting for dead people, and illegally registered voters.
Another obvious step to prevent multiple voting is to have people dip their thumbs or fingers into ink. Third world countries do that to secure the integrity of their democratic process.

Unfortunately, we believe we are to civilized and sophisticated for such a method. So in the end, we will continue to have election fraud, because all people care about is their party, not their country. It has become about winning at all costs not doing what is right.

Government Tyranny.

2008-08-04T17:42:00.000-07:00

Like many places around the country the government is seizing property for unpaid taxes, fines and who knows what else. I am not excusing the people that refuse to pay what is rightfully owed. However, it is a fundamental principle of law that you cannot take more than what the value you are owed. This is a fact that the Founding Fathers firmly believed. In fact, under the common law that they adopted it was illegal to take more than is owed. This is taking of property without just compensation and is illegal under our form of government.
One could ,make the argument that our government cannot take any property except for public use (eminent domain). While I know this is a radical thought for all those kooks, I mean lawyer, it is a fact that our Founders believed in and should be applied today. Otherwise, what we are living under is a tyrannical government that is not for the people or by the people, but has become for itself and separated from the public it is supposed to serve.
The fundamental duty of government is to preserve our rights of life, Liberty and Property. The government we are under today, fails to secure of these rights.

Milwaukee man faces foreclosure because he didn’t pay parking fine
The ticket went unpaid for four years, eventually amounting to $2,600 in fines
By RAQUEL RUTLEDGE Posted: Aug. 2, 2008

Peter Tubic ignored a $50 parking fine in 2004, and on Monday, it cost him his $245,000 house.
In what city officials believe is the first case of its kind, the city foreclosed on Tubic's house on W. Verona Court after repeated attempts to collect the fine - which over the years had escalated to $2,600 - had failed.
"Our goal isn't to acquire parcels," said Jim Klajbor, special deputy city treasurer. "Our goal is to just collect taxes. . . . It is only as a last resort that we would pursue . . . foreclosure."
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Richard Sankovitz technically stayed the judgment to give Tubic one last chance to explain why he hasn't paid or even responded, but Sankovitz ruled in favor of the city's foreclosure.

Full Article:

The Republic is Dead, Long Live the Aristocracy.

2008-05-22T06:05:00.000-07:00

Or so thinks Ted Kennedy. "I'd like wife to take seat". While he might have my sympathy for his recently diagnosed cancer he doesn't for his view on his Senate seat. Too many times in recent history has a wife, son, or daughter been elevated to a seat in our federal legislature after it's vacated through death or movement to another office. I should note that it also happens at the state level as well. These are not hereditary seats, we are not an aristocracy as these people believe. They are not entitled to hold a seat and keep it in the family, that is not what this country was founded upon. Why do these so called leaders feel that they can pass it on to a member of their family, contrary to what our founders believed? One reason is not enough people say anything and are content to let it happen.
It is already bad enough when money and name recognition can keep an office in the family through elections. I can only think how many people died to rid this country of a class of entitled people and we have failed them. The way I see it, they died in vain, for nothing at all because the vanity of the politicians far outweighs their sacrifice.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is an Idiot.

2008-05-16T05:00:00.000-07:00

After the California decision yesterday I thought about writing something, but decided against it. After reading the story today in the Baltimore Sun I just had to say something about what the governor of California said about the decision. While there are many examples of his belief about the role of the courts in our system as it stands today, I just could not let it go by without saying my piece.

"I respect the court's decision, and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling." - AS

What this buffoon is saying is that he believes the Supreme Court of California rules the state. As the Chief executive he has every right to refuse to uphold an unconstitutional ruling. Liberals speak of precedent and how much it matters. In cases like this they throw thousands of years of precedent out the window. And gutless wonders like Schwarzenegger meekly follow because they have been brainwashed into believing in Judicial Supremacy.

By his last statement you can also see that he does not care about what the people have to say. This also shows how a vocal minority can dictate to the majority even if the majority have already spoken which they did when they passed the marriage law in 2000.
The judicial system in this country is a joke because it is not based on law but judicial whim. The absolutes of law have been replaced with the opinions of self-serving social activists who happen to wear black robes and have been elevated to the status of our ruler gods.

This is proof positive that we need to elect people to office that understand the true roles of the different branches. The Governor is not subservient to the Courts and neither is the Legislature. The courts have a proper role in declaring laws to be unconstitutional, but they themselves must adhere to the Constitution. If they violate it their rulings are also subject to not be enforced by the other two branches. To say that they can't is to deny a system of checks and balances.