Extend Thanks To Virginia's Attorney General, Kenneth Cuccinelli

Please.

Justice Stephen Breyer, The Master's Face

Pompous Ass
==============
"Do we really need any further justification for revolt than the interview on FOX News with Justice Stephen Breyer? The condescension was thick in the air of one who rules, yet denies to rule; one who snarkily suggests that if one wants a weapon to shoot at targets one might go to Maryland on the subway. He did not reveal, in all his brilliance, that by possessing a handgun in Washington DC one was already breaking the law, carrying it on the subway concealed if not now, soon will be against the law and presumably captured by one of Janet Napolitano's porno scanners." MORE.

Park Service: Dissing Christians Just Dandy

........a guide who "mimicked and mocked [a Christian] carrying and swinging an oversized Bible ... ."

"Even if I said the founders were Christians, how could we really know? Just because people carry a big ol' Bible in their hand, they can still be atheists!" said the guide.

What Is States’ Rights? Part III

“ … The distribution of powers between the federal and state governments is usually accomplished by means of a written constitution, for a federation does not exist if authority can be allocated by ordinary legislation. …”

"Today it would be laughable to state that the federal government does not create “new” authority from not only legislation but also judicial edict and historically has also used armed aggression. One does not have to look very far to find examples of federal government laws that are obviously beyond the scope that any of the Founding Fathers or Framers of the Constitution of 1787 could have conceive."

Hagan Says Kagan Will Be A Moderate!

Patriot Post - Motivation
========

November 16, 2010

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of then Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important nomination. I apologize for my delayed response.

On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings, beginning on June 28th, to closely examine Solicitor General Kagan's record and ask questions of her and a variety of witnesses. On July 20th the committee approved her nomination, and she was confirmed by the full Senate on August 5th. I voted in support of her nomination, along with a bipartisan majority of my colleagues. On August 7th, she was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

After attending Princeton University, Oxford University, and Harvard Law School, Justice Kagan worked as a clerk on both the Federal Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court under Justice Thurgood Marshall. After working in private practice, Justice Kagan began her career as a professor, teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. In 1995, she worked under President Clintion as Associate White House Counsel and then was named Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. After her service in the White House, Justice Kagan returned to academia, becoming a professor at Harvard Law School and in 2003 she became the first women ever to be named Dean of Harvard Law School.

While I understand your concerns regarding several issues on which Justice Kagan commented during her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School and as White House Counsel, I believe she will be a moderate and thoughtful Justice on the United States Supreme Court. She has repeatedly insisted that the military had full access to the students at Harvard Law at all times. In fact, during her tenure as Dean, the number of military recruits actually increased, not decreased. Additionally, the American Bar Association (ABA) unanimously found Justice Kagan to be "well-qualified," which is the highest rating the ABA gives to judicial nominees. Finally, she was endorsed by many prominent figures from both parties, including the eight Solicitors General that preceded her, a group comprised of members from the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations.

I want to make my position on Supreme Court nominees clear - I believe a justice's duty is to uphold the law, not make the law. In analyzing a nominee's record, I do not impose any litmus test, but I do pay particular attention to where he or she stands on privacy, civil rights and liberties granted under the Constitution.

I believe Justice Kagan will be an extremely well-qualified, mainstream justice. Given her commitment to the rule of law, along with her wide range of work in academia, the federal judiciary, and the White House, I believe she will make an excellent addition to the United States Supreme Court.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Kay R. Hagan

===========

Two pathetic idiots.

Debate Is Taboo On The Great Centralizer, Lincoln

Lies and name-calling are preferred tactics of the Lincoln "scholars" (cultists)

I found out the hard way that Lincoln scholars (read, apologists for ever-increasing political and economic centralization) have no interest in debating any point of law, Constitution, or even history when it comes to the deeds of America’s original and greatest of presidential centralizers, the incomparable Abraham Lincoln. They prefer lies, name-calling, and the hyperbole of smear against anyone who challenges the Lincoln myth.

Via SHNV

ObamaCare And The Constitutional Crisis

"An unintended consequence of the Supreme Court ruling, should they rule in favor of the Case Law adherent, is that the Literalist majority of Americans might come to feel as if they are no longer free, as if they are unable to understand the rules under which they have given their consent to be governed, as if the conclusion of a long-felt oppression is complete. At this point, social upheaval is not only possible, but likely."

Via Washington Rebel

Lying About Service Could Cost Politicians $10K

" While the Supreme Court ponders the possible implications of the Stolen Valor Act, a state lawmaker from South Carolina thinks he's found a better solution for dealing with military fakers: Make them pay."

Another DISCLOSE Alert

Protect Free Speech: Tell Your Senators to Vote NO on the DISCLOSE Act

Act immediately to phone and email your senators in opposition to the DISCLOSE Act. A vote in the Senate is scheduled for tomorrow, September 23.

Back on June 24, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175, by 219-206. In July the Senate failed to pass this bill and it was considered dead until after the November 2 elections, but now suddenly this week the bill has been revived for partisan political reasons by the Democrats and is scheduled for a vote tomorrow, September 23.

Do you remember how President Obama called out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address back in January? He was referring to the Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that unexpectedly upheld the Constitution and free speech by ruling that corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations are permitted to make campaign contributions under the First Amendment. After chastising the Supreme Court, Obama urged “Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct this.”

The DISCLOSE Act is the bill that President Obama was asking for in his State of the Union address. It is a direct attack on the free speech rights of corporations and organizations, even online bloggers, during campaigns.

See Raven Clabough's TNA article from July 29, 2010, “DISCLOSE Act Stalled by GOP Filibuster," for further information about the DISCLOSE Act.

Phone and email your senators in strong opposition to this unconstitutional regulatory scheme known as the DISCLOSE Act.

Thanks.

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Sic Semper Tyrannis To Hussein & His Collectivists

Fair Warning
"This is not a threat. It is not a prediction. It is not a call to action. It is settled history that has been repeated many times. It has all happened before and will happen again. This time, it will happen to you." HERE.


Health Care, Supreme Court, Czars, TARP,

NC Open Carry Rally

"...... I am realistic enough to know that neither the media nor law enforcement will change their paths to help set things straight." More HERE.

Supreme Court, Not Bolton, Has Authority

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial. Read the rest HERE.

We Are Still A Few Votes Short Of Killing The Kagan Nomination

-- Time to redouble our efforts

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org

Tuesday, July 13, 2010


The hearings on Elena Kagan to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court are over.

Senate Democrats slammed them through quickly, in the same way they did ObamaCare. And, like ObamaCare, they made sure that Senate Republicans would not have the material they needed to review Kagan's record -- withholding, for example, large amounts of Clinton administration legal advice on a claim of executive privilege.

(If you missed GOA's testimony at the Kagan hearings, you can view it here: http://gunowners.org/kagantestimony .)

While much has been concealed, what we do know about Kagan is not good, as her public service has clearly shown antagonism to the Constitution and the Separation of Powers.

For example, when it became clear that the Supreme Court might strike down parts of the Brady Act (which it eventually did in 1997), Kagan suggested that President Clinton "by executive order, [might] prohibit a FFL from selling a handgun" without a certification from local police.

In other words, Kagan believed that the President could circumvent the role of Congress and to act unilaterally, without any legal authority, to impose restrictions upon the private ownership of handguns.

Not only that, Kagan drafted a memo for President Clinton suggesting a whole list of guns that could be banned by executive fiat. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 27, 2010, that: "At the time of the [1997] import ban, Jose Cerda, who worked in the domestic policy shop run by Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, said, 'We are taking the law and bending it as far as it can to capture a whole new class of guns.'"

Combine all of this with the fact that in 1987 Elena Kagan told her boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, that she was "not sympathetic" to the plight of an African-American man who wanted to own a gun for self-protection because he carried large sums of cash when depositing money for the laundromat where he worked in Washington, D.C.

Elena Kagan will follow philosophically in the footsteps of Sonia Sotomayor. During her confirmation hearings, Americans were promised that Sotomayor believed the Heller case in 2008 established "that the Second Amendment right is an individual right." But in the recent McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the minority in wanting to both overturn Heller and deny that the Second Amendment protects a "fundamental" right.

So, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lied her way onto the bench. And "cagey Kagan" is doing exactly the same thing. Please make sure you take action!

ACTION: The Senate Judiciary Committee will probably be voting on the Elena Kagan nomination next week -- which means the proverbial ball is now rolling. So contact your Senators and urge them to oppose Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. And please urge your family and friends to do the same.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Senators.

----- Pre-written letter to Senators -----

Dear Senator:

You will be asked soon to vote up or down on Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. After reviewing just some of the evidence against her, I think the case is clear that... a vote for Kagan is an anti-gun vote.

Kagan's public service record has clearly shown antagonism to the Constitution and the Separation of Powers. Emails taken from the Clinton Library clearly bear this out.

For example, when it became clear that the Supreme Court might strike down parts of the Brady Act (which it eventually did in 1997), Kagan suggested that President Clinton "by executive order, [might] prohibit a FFL from selling a handgun" without a certification from local police.

In other words, Kagan believed that the President could circumvent the role of Congress and to act unilaterally, without any legal authority, to impose restrictions upon the private ownership of handguns.

Not only that, Kagan drafted a memo for President Clinton suggesting a whole list of guns that could be banned by executive fiat. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 27, 2010, that: "At the time of the [1997] import ban, Jose Cerda, who worked in the domestic policy shop run by Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, said, 'We are taking the law and bending it as far as it can to capture a whole new class of guns.'"

Combine all of this with the fact that in 1987 Elena Kagan told her boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, that she was "not sympathetic" to the plight of an African-American man who wanted to own a gun for self-protection because he carried large sums of cash when depositing money for the laundromat where he worked in Washington, D.C.

Elena Kagan will follow philosophically in the footsteps of Sonia Sotomayor. During her confirmation hearings, Americans were promised that Sotomayor believed the Heller case in 2008 established "that the Second Amendment right is an individual right." But in the recent McDonald case, Sotomayor joined the minority in wanting to both overturn Heller and deny that the Second Amendment protects a "fundamental" right.

So, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lied her way onto the bench. And "cagey Kagan" is doing exactly the same thing.

I am sure you have seen the recent polls -- fewer than four in ten Americans want to see Kagan confirmed to the Court. I hope you will follow the will of the American people on this one, and not blindly follow the President who, himself, is at near record lows in the polls.

Sincerely,

Casenote On District Of Columbia v. Heller

Who Is Correct, The Lawyer Or Yours Truly? Read it and decide HERE.