Jon Stewart and Charles Krauthammer

I was browsing YouTube and came across this video. I'm glad I did. As always, Krauthammer is brilliant. In this debate/discussion/interview with Jon Stewart he does a brilliant job at explaining the Obama heath care law and why so many conservatives oppose it.

Jon is also brilliant and I appreciate how he expresses himself and his ideas as well. I don't often agree with Stewart but I do think he's hilarious and he really does seem to think about what he believes, rather than just spouting off the typical liberal rhetoric that we are so used to hearing. Both of them really make an effort to be respectful of one another and demonstrate how most of us would like our politicians to discuss issues.

Enjoy!

Kentucky Wants to Crackdown on Illegals

NPI

Nothing thrills me more that watching the states fall in line with Arizona, or make some type of strategic move to get illegals out of the country. There is no business for illegals to be here and, there is no reason for the federal government to ignore their duties in protecting the country.

Kentucky lawmakers took a first step Thursday toward a crackdown on illegal immigrants, advancing a bill that would give police broad authority to check the immigration status of people they stop.

In its first test of support, the measure cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 8-3 vote after a lengthy discussion in which one opponent branded it as a “12th century bill of rights.”

The bill now heads to the full Senate, where it has the support of Republican leaders who set the chamber’s agenda. The legislation is an outgrowth of a controversial Arizona immigration law that is facing legal challenge.

The Kentucky rendition would allow law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of someone when “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is an illegal immigrant.

Click title of post for source. 

Judges Skeptical of Arguments Concerning AZ Immigration Law

I'm not sure what the argument here is. The Obama administration is ridiculous. They are spending our money to fight for not doing what the state of AZ is doing on their behalf. The man should be impeached for this as far as I'm concerned.

Arizona Monday asked appellate judges to let it put into effect a controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants, saying the state bordering Mexico had to step in when the federal government had failed.


Arizona's law using state and local police to determine immigration status has become a national political issue, and the court hearing came a day before the United States votes in elections expected to sharply diminish the Congressional support of President Barack Obama, whose administration sued to stop the law.

The three-judge panel considering whether to let a temporary hold on the law stand while the constitutionality of the statute is weighed showed skepticism toward arguments from both sides, and asked questions that could open the way to allowing parts of the law to go into effect.

Click title of post to read more. 

Soros Gives $1 Million to Promote Pot

True to Soros form, ol' George has give $1 million in order to push the pro-pot bill.

Click title of post for full story.

He is trying to compare this to alcohol prohibition.

I'd almost be pro-pot, until I'm reminded of George Soros. This man has no interest in the people or values of this nation as a whole. He enjoys supporting anything that will lead to ultimate government control over everyone's lives. What better way than to ask for a nation of pot heads!

We have plenty of people who use pot on a daily basis, or even just a moderate basis. We really don't need to add to the mix. Is it the worst thing a person can do? No. Should it be decriminalized? Probably but, I do not want people feeling it's okay to smoke weed wherever they like. I'd still like to be able to take my daughter out without having to witness someone smoking a joint.

I also have huge problems with taxing it. I do not like sin tax of any kind. It's basically the government needing people to be failures so they can keep that revenue in their budget. Talk about sickening.

Did You Know?

I have decided to try and add a new feature to this blog called, "Did You Know?" I hope that you like it. It will be me simply picking out some fun facts about politics and law. In this section of "Did You Know?" the topic will be Ableman vs. Booth.


Please feel free to add any other information. 


Ableman vs. Booth

This case came about in the year 1859. The Supreme Court had established that if there is a prisoner that was held in federal custody, a writ of habeas corpus issued by a state court would not allow the release of that prisoner. This case solidified independence of federal and state courts. No judicial process has authority that is outside of its own jurisdiction.

For more details about this case, click here, or title of post. Very interesting stuff.

Sen. Mike Johanns Pushes For Discussion On Fetal Pain

AP – This photo taken on June 2, 2009 shows Dr. LeRoy Carhart. Dr. Carhart, whose Bellevue, Neb., clinic offers

Nebraska, U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns, is pushing for dialogue that includes this issue of fetal pain.

Click title of this post for full article.

Here are some excerpts:

The Nebraska law that takes effect Friday bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the idea of fetal pain, a departure from the standard of viability — when the fetus could survive outside the womb, generally considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks — established by the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Legislation recently reintroduced by Johanns doesn't go that far. It would require women seeking abortions after 20 weeks to be told the fetus could feel pain and allow them to request anesthesia for the fetus. The measure was first proposed by Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in 2004 and has been reintroduced every year since.

"How does anybody — pro-life or pro-choice — oppose this?" asked Johanns, a Republican. "If the baby feels pain ... then it is an issue of human compassion."

Of course, the other side is claiming it's just junk science. The same people, I'm sure, who believe wholeheartedly in global warming.

Another One Against Arizona

Mark Kirk, Illinois Congressman, states his opposition to AZ's new immigration law.

From article:

Meanwhile, the self-described moderate on social issues Kirk went rogue on the conservative wing of his own Republican Party when he spoke out Tuesday against the Arizona crackdown on immigration.

"I understand the way Arizona citizens feel. But one state acting alone can't solve this problem. This is a core federal responsibility," said Kirk.

Kirk's Democratic opponent Alexi Giannoulias also opposes the Arizona law because he believes it is divisive and encourages racial profiling.

Both Kirk and Giannoulias support versions of comprehensive immigration reform as national policy.

So, now that he's become a Republican U.S. Senate candidate, I guess it's good that we know he doesn't like the law of the land. What AZ did was simply provide a warning, "hey, we're actually going to start enforcing the law now." Some of these politicians are just incredible. He's also probably another politician that has not read the law anyway.

Why Justice Alito Was Correct

I just wanted to share this story with you. It further explains what it was Justice Alito was clearly shaking his head over, during Obama's State of the Union. Click the title of this post for full article.


On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: “That’s not true.” Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it.

So, someone please explain to me why the Democrats got up and were applauding Obama? Are they applauding his total disrespect for the truth, and his ability to lie with such ease, in order to fool the public? Or, are they applauding because, they don't know what the ruling is, they are just ignorant? I thought it was their job to know what is going on? Am I wrong? Someone help me here! I don't get it. It's one of these options, is it not? In either case, that doesn't bode well for the Democrat party, or Obama.

I'm truly appalled by this man. He's either a liar or, he's just an idiot.

What do you think?