The Modern Liberal Part II – Unreasonable Members

See Rule #3.

Visual Aid to Rule #3.

The title could also be “Unreasonable Members (a.k.a the majority of liberals)”, because one does not step into the cesspool of liberalism without embracing a certain level of lunacy. I originally intended to write this post as a short follow-up to The Modern Liberal Part I – Reasonable Members, but I quickly realized that I wasn’t entirely sure how to approach unreasonable liberals.

The more I thought about the issue, the more I questioned even the existence of “reasonable” liberals. Perhaps they’re out there, just hiding in their homes to avoid the negative stereotypes associated with their crazy ilk. If so, I’ve never really met any. In my experience, any liberals who appeared rational on the surface eventually revealed a crazy side once you dug deep enough or hit a particularly sensitive topic. Continue reading

A Review of “Free Will” by Sam Harris

Free Will

I recently took my wife to a massage clinic in downtown Denver and, while she was having her every aching muscle soothed and caressed, I sauntered over to the Tattered Cover to see what all the fuss was about.  For years friends have been telling me that it is the most amazing bookstore EVER, and that living in Colorado for 18 years without nary a visit was borderline blasphemous (good thing they haven’t found out I’ve also never been skiing). Continue reading

Arizona SB1070 Ruling — Further Thoughts

Who wants those freebies?Earlier this week I declared the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona Senate Bill 1070 a victory for life, liberty, freedom, and the libertarian way.  Maybe not in so many words, but that’s how I felt at the time.

Upon further inspection, I’m beginning to feel it was a loss in all three principles.  My initial declaration was based solely on the fact that they upheld the provision in which officers are required to check for legal residency status.  In defense of my naïveté, I was led to believe that this was the ONLY provision in the entire bill by — you guessed it — the media. Liberals were so up in arms about the possibility of “racial profiling” that the media never bothered to explain the remainder of the bill, and I never thought to consider any part of the bill that wasn’t controversial (at the time, I was writing for Colorado State’s local newspaper and severely wanted to stick it to the liberals on campus).

The second provision, in which it was declared a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona, was struck down by the Supreme Court.  I find this highly disconcerting.  Here we have a state absolutely ravaged by the negative effects of illegal immigration, and the Supreme Court affirms that federal law trumps state law.  While I agree with the principle, a natural question arises:  Is it truly a federal law if the federal government refuses to enforce it?

Just a week ago King Obama declared he would no longer make it a priority to seek the deportation of illegal immigrants meeting certain criteria.  Some say he is well within his bounds because as the head of the executive branch he can determine which laws are a priority based on the resources available (I counter with the idea, then, that I should reserve the right to forgo my federal taxes in lieu of buying a new house on the same principle).

What is most disconcerting is that we have a president and a bunch of crooks surrounding him who have clearly sided with criminals who cross the border for freebies (perhaps freedom, too, but mere intent cannot refund the taxpayers’ dollars).  And when a state asks for aid, they are subsequently ignored.  Further on, when seeking further aid from the Supreme Court, they are once again turned away.

"You know we gotta have them votes!"

While the Supreme Court’s decision may have been the correct one (the Constitution makes it clear that federal law trumps state law), I can’t help but wonder if we are witnessing the end of the United States.  Mitt Romney is now beginning to pander to the Hispanic crowd in the attempt to garner more votes, and I think we’ll continue to see both Democrats and Republicans doing this.  It can only mean one thing — full amnesty is inevitable.  Surely, in 50 years, when we are overrun by Mexicans and other Hispanics, they will seek the further dismantling of the Constitution and will achieve it by sheer numbers.

I’m bracing for the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare later this week — and I’m no longer certain they will even strike down the individual mandate.  For freedom’s sake — for the sake of the United States and all she stands for — I hope they do.

Supreme Court rules on Arizona Immigration Law

The Supreme Court has ruled on the controversial Arizona Immigration Law originally passed back in 2010.  Three of the four provisions were struck down, but the most controversial provision that allowed police officers to verify the immigration status of a person on routine traffic stops was upheld. Continue reading

Obama’s “unprecedented” court misshaps

“Unprecedented” has become the President’s catchphrase.  His addiction to this word is overshadowed only by an intense narcissistic personality disorder, which only serves to fuel his addiction.  Everything he does is categorized as “unprecedented”, whether it be his televised “town hall” meetings or the way he butters his bread in the morning.  By the way this man talks, one would think he’s the first and only President of the United States.

Despite his fabricated grandeur, the President has become notorious for his rather high profile failures in the Supreme Court recently.  In an “unprecedented” display of a lack of professionalism, he verbally assaulted the Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union Address. Now he’s reaping the consequences, and the most he can do is continue his hollow blathering and empty threats against the Supreme Court.

Granted, it’s not likely the Supreme Court is tearing his legislation apart because they were insulted by his comments two years ago, but I can’t imagine they’re not giddy with excitement at the prospect of turning the tables on him.  Lately, it seems the Court is the only branch of government actually doing its job and basing their decisions on the content of the U.S. Constitution.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama can only offer platitudes like “I know it [the Affordable Care Act] will be upheld because it’s constitutional” and “a rejection would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”.

Perhaps the only unprecedented aspect of this presidency is that we have a man in office who claims to be a “constitutional scholar” but apparently has never studied the document.

Now his administration shows its ignorance in the Arizona v. United States case.  Even Sonia Sotomayer, a liberal who still panders to the Democratic party, questioned the reasoning behind bringing a lawsuit against a state trying to enforce the law.  The Obama administration’s only defense of such a ridiculous move was that “For each state … to set its own immigration policy in that fashion would wholly subvert Congress’ goal: a single, national approach.”

Right… the single, national approach is to let Mexico invade the United States and win every election in the future for the Democratic party by granting them the illegal right to vote.

Obama and his cronies have ignored the needs of the United States citizens.  Instead, they side with the raving lunatics from Mexico who arrived here illegally and pay no taxes.  We hear no suggestions from the left that these criminals should “pay their fair share”, and yet we are assaulted with arguments to give them the “right” to protest the policies of a country in which they have no citizenship status.

Is it so crazy that the Supreme Court doesn’t like this lawsuit?  Is it really all that difficult to comprehend that a state has every right to aid the Federal government in its duty, with or without their explicit permission?  Once again, the liberal agenda is exposed as one that constantly changes the rules to favor its own ends.  Forget the means by which they are achieved, because only the results matter.

Thankfully, we have a Supreme Court that is still neither “conservative” nor “liberal”, but one that carefully scrutinizes every case and weighs the ramifications against the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps the only thing more “unprecedented” than Barack Obama’s addiction to the word is the density of the air between this president’s ears.

[Also posted on The Constitution Club]