Finally, it looks like there may be a change in store for Arkansans who are tired of the same ol’ same ol’ in the Senate. Republican Congressman John Boozman is out in front of either incumbent Democrat Blanche ‘Health Care’ Lincoln, or Lt. Governor Bill Halter according to a Rasmussen Poll.
But that is just
My Arrogant Opinion
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Eminent Domain. Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use. The Department of Homeland Security decided in a fit of exuberance to make major improvements to that hotbed of terrorist activity on Vermont’s border with Canada, and was planning on using eminent domain as the vehicle for confiscating the land needed from local farmers. Land that had been in their families for generations.
Janet, why not put this sleepy border town on hold and let your gaze drift southwest a bit. Why would this quiet little border crossing in Vermont be a critical matter when your office is doing NOTHING about the flood of illegal aliens streaming across our southern borders? Wouldn’t it be easier for a terrorist to cross into the United States across the broad open border in 
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California? Areas where the sheer numbers of crossings would make it much easier to slip through than through a sleepy farming area of Vermont, where border crossings are few and far between, where neighbors know each other and strangers stand out.
It seems that the inmates have taken over the asylum in Washington. For whatever reason, the people in power in our Nation’s Capital think that we have ceded our sovereign rights and authority to them. The seem to have forgotten that they are considered public SERVANTS, not public overlords. Sadly, they seem to have shut their ears to our complaints and it looks as though we are going to have to absolutely sweep them out of the House and Senate come election day. We also need to remember that only 1/3 of the Senate is being replaced this year, 2/3 of these usurpers will still be in office and they will have to be remembered when the time comes for their re-election campaigns.
But that is just
My Arrogant Opinion
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
I thought that we were a nation of laws and not subject to the capricious whims of our government. Maybe I was wrong, the tone I am hearing out of our federal government agencies and officials is disturbing and frankly a little bit frightening. When a law is written, debated, passed and signed into law by the governor of a state, it is ‘LAW’ until challenged in court and struck down by a higher authority. Well, according to John Morton, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, “I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution.” Oh really? Who died and made you the King of these United States?
Morton is reported to have said that his agency will not necessarily process illegal ‘immigrants’ referred to the by Arizona authorities. That is strange, I don’t believe I have seen anything about Arizona trying to arrest immigrants. Their law is in regard to illegal aliens. Immigrants have gone through the proper channels in order to gain admittance to the United States. While there may be some who have scammed the system into getting immigration status illegally, these people would not be the ones the Arizona law is targeting as they would by definition, have the proper paperwork to support their status as immigrants.
But that is just
My Arrogant Opinion
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Controversy has been surrounding the bill that the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, just signed regarding illegal aliens coming across their border. The bill has ignited a firestorm of name-calling and accusations are flying all the way from Washington. Arizona, tell ‘em all to go piss up a rope! They haven’t read the bill or if they have, they are refusing to admit it so that they will be able to criticize it without being accused of ignoring the content.
I have looked at the bill and I don’t see anything in it that would or should cause all the fuss. SCOTUS has already ruled on the constitutionality of requiring people to present their papers when asked, in a much broader sense than what is in the Arizona Bill. In Meuhler vs Mena, SCOTUS in a 9-0 decision rules that it is not unconstitutional to ask someone to show their ID.
The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena’s Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F.3d, at 1264—1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 212 (1984). “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” Bostick, supra, at 434—435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.
Note the bolded areas in the text above which comes from the unanimous opinion. The Arizona law prohibits such questioning, a police officer has to have reasonable cause to stop someone and only then can the suspect be asked for his/her ID.
President Obama, you might want to clue ol’ Eric Holder in on this bit of information, and by the way the SCOTUS Decision is relatively short, only about a page long, when you guys get through reading it why not send it out to California so the Mayor of LA can read it.
But that is just
My Arrogant Opinion
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Whore is defined as follows:
Whore: \ˈhȯr, ˈhu̇r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English hore, from Old English hōre; akin to Old Norse hōra whore, hōrr adulterer
Date: before 12th century1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
A male who engages in sexual acts for money, hmmm, does raping the American people in order to get a special deal from the health insurance boondoggle bill of 2009 qualify as a sexual act for money? Well, no matter, the third definition certainly fits the situation if nothing else does.
Ben Nelson Senate Whore
That’s right folks! My tax dollars and yours will be going to pay for Medicaid in Nebraska while they sit back smoking a cigarette and enjoying the afterglow of Ben’s frolics.
When will this abuse ever stop? When will we, as a people force a change? We need to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to the State Legislatures selecting our Senators and stop them answering only to the special interests that can give them the biggest check. I know that I am not alone, and I am as pissed off as I have ever been with politicians and am ready to put my time, money, and effort behind my anger and work to kick the bums out of office.
But that’s just My Arrogant Opinion
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. [From Ron Paul’s ‘Speeches and Statements’] Franklin has also been quoted as saying, “He who gives up a measure of freedom for security deserves neither.” To paraphrase this quote, I would say, ‘he who allows freedom to slip through his fingers in order to take his ease, deserves neither.’
There were fifty-six men who were willing to put their lives and fortunes on the line for the sake of freedom. These are the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, the signing of which we celebrate every year with pic-nics and fireworks. These men gave of their time and money to forge the documents that would frame a new nation the likes of which had never been seen on this earth. They did their best to make sure that their posterity knew the cost of the ink these documents contained because they knew that that which is too cheaply obtained is not cherished. They feared for the new republic.
As a people, we need to re-visit our founding documents, immerse ourselves in the Federalist Papers. Learn our Constitution, and know what our founding fathers were trying to accomplish when they set pen to parchment and ensured there could be no turning back on the course they had set for themselves. We need to understand these documents so that when we see things being done by our elected representatives we can call them on it, stop them from ignoring the ‘rulebook’ and keep them in check.
The three branches of our government are supposed to keep each other in check, but over the past hundred years or so they have been slowly moving towards the center and the lines separating the branches have been eroding. We have to put a stop to it now, before, it becomes evident that Benjamin Franklin’s worst fears became true, and we did fail to keep the republic.
During the past few weeks, as the Pelosi health care bill was being cussed and discussed, I called my Congressman’s office in Washington. First, I wanted to add my voice to the others who were opposed to the bill, but I wanted something more. I wanted to know exactly how they justified this bill constitutionally. The staffer I spoke with told me basically that they weren’t constrained by the Constitution unless they were challenged and lost in court.
I’m sorry to say, that I was stunned into silence when I was told that, but I made up my mind right then that I would do everything within my power to unseat Marion Berry from his seat in Congress. If he can’t read the job description in the Constitution, he has no business being in office.
But, that’s just My Arrogant Opinion
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
