Obama Judicial Appointees: 'Murder Jews, No Harm, No Foul'

As the AP reported, a three judge panel for the U.S. 2nd District Court of Appeals tossed out a $654 million jury verdict for damages against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO today for terrorist attacks it coordinated and sponsored in Israel that killed or wounded Americans.

The court's ruling was based on a very curious interpretation of the law involved, the U.S. Anti Terrorism Act, which allows American victims of foreign terrorist attacks to sue state sponsors of terrorism in U.S. courts for damages.

The original verdict was the result of a case called Sokolow v. PLO that was tried by jury in the Federal District Court in Manhattan and was brought by American victims and survivors of six terrorist attacks in Israel between 2001 and 2004. The evidence showed clearly that not only had the PLO under Yasser Arafat planned, financed, and executed the attacks but that it continued to pay generous stipends to the perpetrators and their families.

The 2nd Circuit refused to allow any of the evidence linking the Palestinian Authority and the PLO to the attacks and the attackers to be heard, although as a sop, they admitted the attacks occurred and were 'horrendous'. What they based their ruling on is that Palestine is not a state and therefore, the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction to rule against them!

Now, the PLO and the Palestinian authority have always said that they're a sovereign state ever since Oslo and have always successfully insisted in being treated as one by the U.S. and other entities. They have their own flag, a national anthem, their own military, a presidential compound, a capitol, they belong to international organizations and institutions like UNESCO and the International Red Crescent whose rules prohibit non-states from joining, and they have what passes for a parliament, courts and laws.

In America, they have diplomatic missions in New York and Washington and lobbyists working on their behalf, they have bank accounts in America, and they receive huge amounts of foreign aid from the Obama Administration both directly and through a UN entity, UNRWA. But Judge John G. Koeltl, the Obama appointee who wrote the opinion on the case said the panel found that Palestine, when it comes to being sued is not a state, that the attacks didn't specifically target Americans and were 'fortuitous' (a very curious use of that word, by the way) and that according to the judges on this panel there was no link between the PLO's activities in America and their activities in the Middle East even though Arafat ruled both groups and appointed and hired their representatives in America. Or as the judges put it, there's no evidence showing the attacks "resulted from their actions that did occur in the United States."

Apparently these judges also believe that if a customer is shot and killed during a bank robbery or a motorist is killed by a drunk driver's negligence, the victim's family have no right to a civil suit for damages. It was just 'fortuitous.'

That judgment also ignored extensive evidence that shows that at least part of the funding for the attacks and stipends for convicted killers and their families came from money siphoned off from American aid obtained through the efforts of PLO, Palestinian personnel and lobbyists here in America...which the panel refused to hear.

Even more interesting, Judge Koeltl wrote in his decision: "The overwhelming evidence shows that the defendants are 'at home' in Palestine, where they govern. Palestine is the central seat of government for the PA and PLO. The PA's authority is limited to the West Bank and Gaza, and it has no independently operated offices anywhere else. All PA governmental ministries, the Palestinian president, the Parliament, and the Palestinian security services reside in Palestine," the ruling said.

Aside from the gaffe about the PLO having authority in Gaza (they don't) doesn't this sound like a description of a sovereign state to you? Don't a country's leader, its security forces and its parliament and its governing bodies normally reside in its own territory? And can you think of any government that has independently operated offices in any foreign country? Aren't embassies and foreign offices abroad run by the sovereign state they represent?

So one one hand, the judges based their ruling on Palestine not being a state, which the PLO and PA obviously consider that it is on every occasion except being responsible for terrorism committed on its behalf. And on the other hand, they go out of their way to describe it exactly as one would describe a sovereign state!

Actually, this isn't so hard to figure out if you dig a little. The panel consisted of Judges John G. Koeltl (Obama appointee), Pierre N. Leval (Clinton appointee), and and Christopher F. Droney (Obama appointee) all of them left wing Democrats. And the Obama Administration went out of its way here to do whatever they could to get the original verdict tossed and and protect Abbas and the PA from having to pay a dime to the Americans they murdered and maimed.

In the original trial, President Obama had his Justice Department lean successfully on the judge in the case, George B. Daniels, to substantially lower the bond the Palestinians would have to post in order to appeal, normally 111 per cent of the judgement in these cases. The Justice Department filed a 'friend of the court' brief that claimed that a high bond would negate millions of dollars spent to promote Democracy and a Two State solution, and the judge complied over the objections of the victim's attorneys.

That same Obama Justice Department brief was allowed to be introduced as evidence by the defense, and given that there were two Obama appointees on the panel, there's no doubt that it carried a great deal of weight in this skewed judgment.

The Anti-Terrorism Act which allows United States citizens who are the victims of international terrorism to sue in the federal courts was passed some years after the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer in the Palestinian hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. It was designed to provide American citizens with redress and such judgments have already been made against state sponsors of terrorism against American like Syria and Iran, even though Iran has no offices or diplomats here in the U.S. Notably, such outstanding judgments were ignored by the Obama Administration during negotiations over the Iran deal and during the recent $400 million dollar ransom paid Iran for American hostages.

Kent A. Yalowitz, a lawyer for the families in the case, said in a statement that the law had been passed by Congress “to protect Americans wherever in the world they traveled.”

“The very terrorists who prompted the law have now hidden behind the U.S. Constitution to avoid responsibility for their crimes,” Mr. Yalowitz said. “This cruel decision must be corrected so that these families may receive justice.”

Mr.Yalowitz is entirely correct, and frankly, I think the fact that most if not all of the victims were American Jews who were attacked in Israel also plays into this. This president's animus towards Israel is well known.

 


But aside from the possibility of an appeal to correct this, there's a bright side.

If Palestine isn't a state according to the Obama Administration, than the Israelis can declare Oslo and the Road Map null and void (the Palestinians already have) and proceed accordingly. They can cancel any and all agreements signed with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO since they were signed as agreements between two sovereign entities. Even the areas of sovereignty and control were clearly defined. But if Palestine isn't a state, then the Obama administration has no moral or legal right to treat it as one at any time, not just when it's convenient for the President's agenda. That 'non-state' status applies across the board.

If Palestine isn't a state, then Judea and Samaria (AKA The West Bank) belongs entirely to Israel, since the only state that ever physically controlled any part of it in recent times aside from Israel was Jordan, who illegally invaded it in 1948, were driven out in 1967 after they attacked Israel and have since relinquished all claims to the area. If Palestine isn't a state,there is no 'occupation' (not that there ever was) and Israel can annex it as sovereign territory. Moreover, since many of the 'Palestinians' including Mohammad Abbas hold Jordanian citizenship and Israel and Jordan have no dual citizenship agreement, Israel can legally remove these non-Israeli citizens from its new borders and repatriate them to Jordan. Israel can also insist that all UNWRA camps in this region be located elsewhere.

Since Palestine isn't a state, Israel can also avoid repatriating the tax monies it collects on the PLO's behalf, deposit it in a fund, and allow Israelis and American Jews and their families to sue in Israeli courts and collect damages accordingly.

The Obama Administration and its minions can make the decision to treat Palestine as a state in every respect except the basic one of responsibility for its actions. That's pretty much been the president's policy since he took office, and not just when it comes to Palestine. Essentially, it's an endorsement of the same old BDS horse manure that 'resistance to occupation is not terrorism.' At least when it comes to Israel, the Jew among nations.

But aside from being brutally immoral in terms of what America has always stood for, this action opens up a whole new door. If Palestine isn't a state, then the Obama Administration doesn't have a leg to stand on when talking about 'Palestinian land,' 'occupation,' or demanding further Israeli concessions.

Justina Pelletier: Judge Awards 'Permanent Custody' To Mass. DFC

Judge Joseph Johnston has ruled that The Massachusetts Department of Families And Children (DFC) will have 'permanent custody' of 15-year-old Justina Pelletier, taking her away from her parents in spite of her own wishes and her rapidly declining health in state custody.

This case is a textbook example of child abuse promulgated by the legal system and an embedded bureaucracy, and it is worth looking at to see how far out of hand our ruling class has gotten.

Fourteen months ago, Justina, a Connecticut teen was being treated for mitochondrial disease, a group of rare genetic disorders affecting cellular energy production.Her physician who had been treating her, Dr. Mark Korson at Tufts, wanted the girl to visit gastroenterologist Dr. Alejandro Flores at Boston Children's Hospital, who had treated Justina at Tufts in the past. Being loving and concerned parents, the Pelletiers made the appointment with Dr. Flores and duly went to Boston Children's Hospital to have Justina seen.

When they got there, instead of seeing Dr. Flores, Justina was essentially kidnapped. She was taken to emergency where a resident refused to let her see Dr. Flores. Instead, he decided that this was a psychiatric case and sent Justina to a psychologist who diagnosed her with somatoform disorder -- a mental condition in which a patient experiences symptoms that are real but are psychosomatic.

When the Pelletiers rejected the new psychiatric diagnosis and wanted to bring Justina back to Tufts, the hospital first tried to force the girl's parents to sign papers admitting her as a psychiatric patient and when they refused and understandably became insistent at taking their daughter out of Boston Children's, the hospital got the state Department of Family and Children involved and accused the parents of medical child abuse.

They were not permitted to bring Justina home or to another facility. Instead, the teen was kept at Boston Children’s psychiatric ward for nearly a year where her physical condition deteriorated while the parents unsuccessfully fought the system to get Justina released.The DCF has allowed the parents only one hour per week to visit their daughter, but always with DCF personnel present. DCF would not allow the parents to photograph their daughter, and even filed a motion to hold Lou Pelletier in contempt of court for speaking to national media.

"Tufts was working fine with her, diagnosed medically, going to school, ice skating and doing all those things," Lou Pelletier said. "Look at her then and look at her now."

The DCF also has refused to provide the medical care Justina's condition requires, will not allow her access to a priest or to communion (she's Catholic) has refused to make any accommodations for her education, with the result that she is now almost two years behind her classmates in school.

Three weeks ago, Judge Johnston approved a written agreement transferring care back to Tufts Medical Center from Boston Children’s Hospital. That still hasn't been done, as Boston Children's has refused to make any appointments with the doctors there in spite of Justina's condition.

This decision by Judge Johnston was in response to a motion presented by the 15-year-old’s court-appointed lawyer and the lawyers for her parents, Linda and Lou Pelletier. It called for the girl's parents to be awarded “conditional custody” of their daughter.

Instead, the judge has granted permanent custody of Justina Pellatier to the DFC...who have done absolutely nothing to help her.

In his order, Johnston noted that the court considered granting conditional custody to the Pelletiers but “very concerning conduct … does not give this court any confidence they will comply with the conditions of custody.” The evidence? That Lou Pelletier once threatened a DFC social worker, who was afterward removed from the case, and oh yes..the media presence.

“Instead of engaging in quality visits with Justina, the parents use profanity directed at MA DCF personnel in Justina’s presence,” Johnston’s ruling said.

Johnston also included that he thinks Lou and Linda Pelletier should be “psychologically and clinically evaluated,” but refused to have the state of Massachusetts do it, insisiting that it must be coordinated through the State of Connecticut’s own DCF.

You bring your daughter in for medical treatment, she gets kidnapped, you see her dying in front of your eyes and you lose it with some heartless bureaucrat drone who's keeping her prisoner? And when you finally get fed up with doing the dance for months and go to the media to try to shed some sunlight on what's happening to your child, you need to be “psychologically and clinically evaluated?”

To tell you the truth, if the Pellatiers hadn't done that, I'd think they needed to be psychologically evaluated.

This is one of those canary in the coalmine moments. It is the State shoving our noses in the fact that they own our children and they know what's best, and we're just the sperm and egg donors.

What's next? On May 25th, Judge Johnston is expected revisit the decision to award permanent custody in a follow-up court hearing on May 25. His ruling leaves it up to the state DCF to decide whether or when Justina should be returned to her family, which means she could end up in state care until she turns 18. If she survives.

Meanwhile, the Pelltiers haven't given up. They're appealing the decision and have filed a writ of habeus corpus against Massachusetts for wrongful imprisonment. Hopefully this will get Justina freed by order of the Appellate courts, although it might just be that the attention this is generating could get Justina Pellatier freed sooner..perhaps at the review hearing in May.

Sharia Rears Its Head In Pennsylvania

This one caught my eye (h/t, This Ain't Hell).

In Mechanicsburg, PA, there was a Halloween parade. And a group calling themselves 'The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania' decided it would be a hoot to dress up as the Pope, Jesus, Mohammed, and other religious figures and portray them as zombies.

A Muslim watching the parade with his family became livid over what he saw as blasphemy and there was a confrontation. What it consisted of depends on whom you believe. The plaintiff/victim Ernest Perce V,
whom just happens to be the Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc.,claims he was physically assaulted, choked from behind by the defendant, Taaliq Elbayomy, that the defendant attempted to smash the sign over his head and pull his costume beard off. In addition, the atheists caught the entire episode on video.

The police were summoned, and in their interview with Taaliq Elbayomy, he admitted there had been physical contact.There's a Pennsylvania law against this sort of thing, so the police and the DA took it to court, which is when things got strange.

The trial was presided over by Judge Mark W. Martin. The first thing he did was to refuse to allow the video of the altercation taken by the plaintiff to be used as evidence. And he allowed Elbayomy to testify without challenge, saying that there was no physical contact, thus changing the story he told the police. That in itself is a crime since its illegal to lie to an officer of the law. Elbayomy also told the court that he was under the impression that to parade around dressed as Mohammed was against the law here in America (which it isn't) and that he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

In delivering his verdict, Judge Martin then proceeded to give Ernest Perce V a tongue lashing, lecturing him on the Qu'ran, sharia law and Muslim culture. The judge's rant starts at about 27:00:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else's religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus and Mr.Elbayomy is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

“Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture, their culture. It's their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-salaam (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it's very common when speaking to each other it”s very common for them to say uh, this will happen if it's Allah's will, they are so immersed in it.”

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive *. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it's not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans..this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don't care about other people”s rights as long as we get our say but we don't care about the other people's say.”

The judge than said that what he basically had here was a he said, she said situation, that the burden of proof was on the defendant and that it was not "proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

(* First, before we go further, let's discuss at that asterisk. In the video linked above,which is a recording of the trial Judge Martin appears to clearly say "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." However, the judge claims what he actually said is 'I'm not a Muslim, I find it offensive.' You can take your pick, although I will say for a non-Muslim, it's interesting that he had a Qu'ran so handy, claimed such authoritative knowledge of it, seemed so enamored of sharia, seems to not understand the First Amendment and seems to somewhat regret that our atheist friend isn't being beheaded for blasphemy.)

I actually understand Judge Martin's verdict. The selfie video doesn't show things all that clearly,mainly a lot of shouting. Not allowing it as evidence in a non-jury trial is not how I would have proceeded,but Judge Martin was within his rights to do so.

It's also true that when the atheists chose to dress up as religious figures, they were obviously looking to provoke a confrontation. To do something like that and then claim 'oh, I'm such a victim' is pretty typical in Obama's America, but that doesn't make it right. Personally, whenever I hear a militant atheist like Mikey Weinstein pule on about those 'evil Christianists' and how we have to get G-d out of our military, I admit to experiencing a pretty disgusted reaction myself. But I also recognize that he's entitled.

Since there wasn't any clear evidence of an actual physical assault, I think Judge Martin was entitled to dismiss the case.

But that's where it stops.

There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for Judge Martin to use the bully pulpit of the bench to deliver a one sided rebuke to an American clearly exercising his First Amendment rights. If someone wants to burn a Qu'ran or a Bible or an American flag, that is both stupid, disrespectful and unkind, but it is not illegal.At least not in America, not yet.

Here Judge Martin had a defendant who is an immigrant and plainly admitted in court he wasn't aware of how the First Amendment works. Did Judge Martin engage in what was obviously called for, a rebuke that explained Mr.Elbayomy's mistake to him and included some basic information on how our Bill of Rights works? Nope. In fact, the way he ruled and his subsequent remarks obviously left Mr.Elbayomy feeling like what he did was entirely correct behavior, as well as providing an interesting model of conduct to his children.

Must.not.offend.Islam.or Muslims.ever.

You see, that's where sharia kicks in.In his off the wall rant, Judge Martin essentially honored the Muslim blasphemy laws, implying that anyone could understand what Mr.Elbayomy did. Why, his essence was being attacked!

This is unfortunately symptomatic of a trend in some American legal circles that seek to legitimize a legal code totally incompatible with America's Constitution and our freedoms. No less than Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has weighed in about how foreign law and sharia needs to be considered in U.S. jurisprudence, and how respect for a Qu'ran should trump the First Amendment. And President Obama's new Justice Elena Kagan who lied openly during her confirmation hearings is also very sharia friendly as evidenced by her conduct while on the Harvard faculty.

 Here's a list and evaluation of about fifty  cases where sharia law has figured in American judicial proceedings, and it's by no means all inclusive.While many of these cases were overturned at the appellate level, the fact that sharia was considered at all even as a legal argument is cause for concern. Britain, where sharia is now mandatory for Muslims in family matters has proved a disaster for women's rights and is a clear warning to other countries about what a slippery slope this can be.

It's quite obvious that for whatever reason, whether he is a Muslim or not, Judge Martin holds certain very positive views on Islam and sharia and accords sharia an equal status with U.S. law, and he went out of his way to express them. It's also obvious that it affected how he treated the case and the plaintiff and that his bias would affect how he would treat future cases, future lawyers and plaintiffs whose fate he might be deciding.

This is clear judicial misconduct, and Judge Martin should be removed for it.

The Shame Of The Ft. Hood Killer's Trial Comes To An End

 

The trial of Major Nidal Hassan, who murdered of 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded more than 30 others while they were disarmed at a dispensary inside the military base at Fort Hood has finally come to an end with a guilty verdict. One of them was a pregnant private who lay wounded on the floor and pleaded with Hasan for her baby's life before he finished her off.

 In the next phase of the trial, which will begin Monday, the military officer jurors have to  all agree to give Hasan the death penalty. If they do not agree, the 42-year-old could spend the rest of his life in prison.

I have never been more ashamed of my country.

The entire saga of Nidal Hassan, an Arab American who identified himself as a Palestinian tells much about how deeply our country has been infected by dhimmitude and appeasement - even in our military.

During Major Hassan's entire career, he made no secret of his radical Islamist beliefs and his hatred for America.At a presentation he made at Walter Reed Hospital in 2009 entitled "The Quranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military" Hassan gave his views that the Qu'ran condones fighting to establish an Islamic state, that Muslim soldiers were prohibited from engaging in any actions that might result in the death of Muslims, and that all Muslims in the military should be released as conscientious objectors.

Retired Colonel Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan, surfaced after the Fort Hood shootings to say that Hasan had made remarks approving of the actions of the Muslim murderers who shot down two U.S. soldiers in Little Rock, Arkansas He told FOX News that that Hasan made "outlandish" statements against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other things saying that "the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor", referring to the United States.

He carried a business card that identified him as a 'soldier of Allah', carried on an open and extensive correspondence with al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, and made numerous comments espousing jihad against the United States he had sworn an oath to protect and defend.

Yet he was promoted through the ranks and received excellent fitness reports.Not one of his commanding officers or fellow soldiers were willing to go out on a limb and out him as the jihadist he was because they were afraid it would mark them as 'Islamophobes' and ruin their careers, something they'd seen happen to others.

At least six months before the Ft. Hood murders, Hasan had come to the attention of federal authorities because of internet postings he made discussing suicide bombings and jihad. The postings, made in the name "NidalHasan", compared a suicide bomber to a soldier who dies to save others and sacrifices his life for a "more noble cause." Again, in spite of this blazing red flag, no official investigation was opened. No one wanted to risk harming their careers by pushing the issue. Everything was buried.

This man was an open enemy of America and lay coiled like a rattlesnake in the midst of our warriors. Like a rattler, he gave off an open warning of his presence, but he remained protected by the willingness of our government to appease Islamist fascism.

So when Hasan brought two handguns into the dispensary at Fort Hood and started murdering his fellow soldiers while screaming Allahu Akbar, it should have surprised no one.

Horrible as that was,  worse was yet to come.

The Obama Administration refused to label what happened at Fort Hood a terrorist attack, instead dubbing it 'workplace violence.' This had the effect of denying combat medals and the accompanying increased survivor benefits to the families of the murder victims as well as the wounded. And incidentally, lessening the exposure of the Army to civil suits.

Our Dear Leader as commander in chief could easily have designated the Fort Hood attacks as jihadist terrorism at the cost to the government of a fraction of what's been spent on one of his luxury vacations or perhaps canceling a couple of his White House parties. He didn't.

Weeks went by as Major Hasan toyed with the military court about representing himself and even shaving or not shaving his beard as per military regulations because yes, he remains a U.S. soldier with full pay and benefits to this day. Rather than simply forcibly shaving him as was done with Saddam Hussein, the judge, Colonel Tara Osborn allowed him to keep his facial foliage.

Major Hasan finally won the right to represent himself, with a couple of lawyers from the judge advocate's corps as advisers. He made no pretense of denying that he was the killer, admitting to the murders in his opening statement.

In an absolutely outrageous ruling that underlined our government's attitude towards Islamist fascism as well as those who volunteer to fight it, Colonel Osborn disallowed any evidence that pointed towards jihad or Islamism as Major Hasan's motive for the murders, a decision deliberately calculated to sharply reduce the awards in a number of civil suits that have been filed by the victim's families by making sure the farcical designation of 'workplace violence' remains rather than calling this what it is, or , heaven forbid , casting any aspersions on the Religion of Peace.

At one point, Judge Osborn actually tried to help Hasan,  suggesting that the murders were the result of a sudden spontaneous flash of rage,,,which would have meant murder two instead of murder one and probably life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

Hasan would have no part of that. He wants his martyrdom as a soldier of Allah.  "It wasn't done under the heat of sudden passion," Hasan said before jurors began deliberating. "There was adequate provocation — that these were deploying soldiers that were going to engage in an illegal war."

Not only that, but the evidence clearly showed that Hasan made thorough preparations for the killings, even going to the extent of  putting  paper towels in the pockets of his cargo pants to muffle the rattling of the extra ammo he was carrying to  avoid arousing suspicion.

Major Hasan's defense, if it can be called that,  consisted of examining just 3 of the 89 witnesses to establish that he was indeed the killer.

As a soldier of Allah, he's proud of killing the infidels.After all, doesn't the Qu'ran say they're enemies of Islam who will all burn in hell anyway?

Hasan will be almost certainly convicted of murder. In the military system during sentencing, the defendant can make an unsworn statement, which means he can’t be cross-examined and Hasan will take the opportunity he's been provided with to preach jihad and justify what he did as a holy act.

Unlike his victims, Nidal Hasan will get a painless death by lethal injections, as well as an opportunity to preach a final dawa to the world. He will be looking forward to frolicking with the 72 virgins as a Holy Martyr.The Obama Administration will see to it that he gets a full Islamic funeral just like Osama bin-Laden's, which involves cursing Christians and Jews as part of the rites.

Real justice would involve a hanging with a piece of pork stuffed into Hasan's mouth and then simply tossing his body into the sea. Then it might actually serve as something of a deterrent instead of an encouragement to future jihadis seeking martyrdom. Instead, Hasan will be seen and lionized as a role model and hero by our enemies.

The Obama Administration and the Army establishment will be able to sweep this under the rug as workplace violence thanks to the compliant Major Osborn, rather than admitting that this was a terrorist attack by an Islamist fascist. Not one military officer who saw what was going on with Major Hasan and failed to speak out will be punished or demoted in any way. Major Osborn will undoubtedly receive a promotion. And  the Obama Administration, the Army establishment and most of all Major Hasan, who will have achieved what he undoubtedly feels is the perfect jihad,  will all end up getting what they wanted.

The ones who will pay the price are the victims dead and living, their families, and the military rank and file. They will be left with the knowledge that their pain and the deaths of their loved ones count for nothing, and that the nation they selflessly volunteered to risk their lives to protect will simply go along with this obscenity rather than exploding in outrage.

Major Hasan was an honest rattlesnake, who made no attempt to hide whom he was.

It is America that bears the guilt and the shame. I wonder how we can stand it.

How long, oh Lord, how long?


  

Robert Bork, 1927-2012

Judge Robert Bork, one of America's most prominent jurists and legal thinkers passed away today, at age 85.

After receiving a Phi Beta Kappa with his law degree at the University of Chicago, serving in the Marine Corps and spending some time in private practice, he went on to become a revered professor at Yale Law School and a highly regarded legal thinker whose writings virtually reformed the practice of antitrust jurisprudence and pioneered a lot of the modern movement back towards originalism in constitutional law. It's no exaggeration to say that almost every prominent jurist in America was affected by his ideas, not to mention a number of his other students like Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown, John R. Bolton, Samuel Issacharoff, and Cynthia Estlund.

Bork's attitude towards the Constitution and the Founders can be summed up in one famous quote: "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else."

Bork served as solicitor general in the Nixon and Ford Administration, and then served as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals before being nominated by President Reagan to as a justice for the Supreme Court.

What happened next gave a whole new word to the language, 'borked', referring to gratuitous slander and defamation used as a toll in political warfare.

The Democrats on the Left had regained a senate majority in the 1986 midterms, had already warned President Reagan that they wanted someone with their ideology nominated to replace retiring Justice Lewis Powell, and that they would fight tooth and nail against anyone he nominated who didn't pass muster with them. When President Reagan nominated the eminently qualified Bork in 1987, they declared open war.

Led by Senator Ted Kennedy, they attacked his morals, his character, played the race card and stopped at nothing, Here's a sample of Kennedy in action:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is— and is often the only— protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy..

Imagine, being lectured on morality by Ted Kennedy.

Bork's response was to state simply "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."

He was right, but with media like the New York Times and the alphabet networks leading the way, the message that Bork was a radical extremist, a racist and a fascist took hold and became the narrative.

Nothing like that had ever taken place during the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice, and Kennedy's tactics opened up a whole new era of bitter partisan warfare, another of his legacies to the American people that still besmirches our country and its politics long after his death.

The Reagan Administration was not prepared for this, and neither was Judge Bork. When he responded with feeling to the attacks by Kennedy and others on his morals and character, Kennedy was able to corral enough votes to defeat his nomination, 58–42.

Roger Kimball is quite correct in calling it 'obscene'. It was.

Bork went on to continue his career as one of America's most prominent legal thinkers. He became a a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson institute, did some legal consulting with private clients and taught at the University of Richmond School of Law and at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida.

He also write two best selling books, "The Tempting of America" and "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline."

To read them is to engage with a mind of prodigious intellectual fire power, and their prescience in analyzing the role of the Left in the decline of American freedom and civil society is eye opening.

Judge Bork passed away  after living a life of accomplishment and leaving behing a legacy of work and thought that will long out last his time on earth.

RIP.

Supreme Court Begins Hearing Arguments On ObamaCare

The SCOTUS began hearing arguments on ObamaCare's constitutionality today. The Court plans to hear arguments initially over a three day period.

A great deal of the first day's arguments were taken up by the issue of examining a statute that keeps courts from hearing tax challenges before they go into effect.

The court had asked Washington lawyer Robert A. Long to present the argument that the obscure 19th-century Anti-Injunction Act meant that the anti-ObamaCare lawsuits brought by 26 states and a private business organization were 'premature', in that no one had actually been victimized yet. Long said the court’s precedents showed that the law should prevent these suits going to court until someone actually had to pay a penalty on his or her 2015 income tax returns for not purchasing health insurance.

Long's argument was that “pay first, litigate later” could only be waived by Congress,and the penalties called for in the act should be considered the same as taxes because of the way they are collected...via an income tax penalty.

Interestingly, Long was appointed by the Court to present that legal argument because neither the Obama administration nor the law’s challengers agree with it.

Oddly enough, Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia, who hardly agree on anything concurred that this was sheer bilge.

"Just because the penalty is “being collected in the same manner of a tax doesn’t automatically mean it’s a tax,” said Justice Breyer, “particularly since the purpose of the Anti-Injunction Act is to prevent interference with the revenue stream.” Obviously, the legal challenge doesn't interfere with revenue collection, as Breyer added.

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, but from the opposite end of the spectrum. He remarked that as a matter of principle the courts should not be deprived of jurisdiction in cases unless the reasoning is very clear. “I find it hard to think this is clear, whatever else it is,” Scalia said.

President Obama's solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. also said the case should move forward, saying, “This case presents issues of great moment, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the court’s consideration of those issues.”

He also argued that the penalties in ObamaCare aren't a tax, which is interesting because one of his main defenses for the individual mandate is that it's legal and constitutional because - wait for it - it falls under congress's authority to levy taxes!

Justice Scalia as usual was quick to see the innate hypocrisy: “Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you will be back and arguing that the penalty is a tax.”

The individual mandate,the vile heart of ObamaCare is scheduled for arguments tomorrow, and as Justice Scalia pointed out, that's exactly the position Verrilli is going to be in.

Where might the Court ultimately go on this?

They could certainly uphold the law as written, ruling that Congress had the power to enact this law, no matter how the public feels about it. This would endorse the continued distortion of the Commerce Clause and uphold the individual mandate as part of Congress’s power to impose taxes. The court would basically be telling the American people that elections have consequences and that the remedy is to vote out the lawmakers if you want an unpopular law repealed.

Another possibility is that the SCOTUS could find the individual mandate unconstitutional and thus overturn the entire law because the statute doesn’t have a “severability clause” — standard language the Democrats somehow forgot to include that says if one part of the law is overturned, the rest of it is still in force.To me, that would be an absolutely hilarious and appropriate finish. As then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said, "You have to read the bill to see what's in it."

That would especially make the Left's heads explode, because it would amount to President Obama's flagship legislation and his first two years with a super majority of Leftist Democrats being an absolute waste of time - because of an elementary omission a first year law student probably could have caught.

More likely than the above, the individual mandate by itself could be declared unconstitutional, which would mean de facto that ObamaCare is history because the law's entire rationale and means of enforcement involves it. The guts would be torn out of it.

Another point of attack that could resonate in the eventual SCOTUS ruling is a point the various lawsuits by the individual states have argued, that Congress exceeded its authority by essentially forcing them to expand their Medicaid programs. It's a a condition of receiving federal Medicaid funds,in common with other programs like federal highway funds, but the states say there's coercion involved because unlike some of the other programs, dropping out of the program isn’t a realistic option.

Of course, the SCOTUS could also simply punt due to the Anti-Injunction Act argument mentioned above, if they decided they'd rather not take this on during what's bound to be a heated election year. I personally doubt they'd do that,but I'm pretty sure at least two justices are leaning that way, and President Obama appointed them both.

An interesting debate, to be sure, and a decision ought to come right in the middle of the 2012 campaign.

US Judge Vacates Judgment After The Fact, Hearts PLO Terrorists

If you go to court and lose, get a huge judgment against you and ignore it and refuse to pay a penny for three years, what do you think the odds are that the court would simply set it aside and allow you contest the whole thing from scratch again,just because?

Pretty good, if you're the 'Palestinian Authority' and you murder Jews.

Back in February of 2002, there was a horrendous suicide bombing of a crowded pizza parlor in the Jewish village of Karnei Shomron by the PLO.

Three teenagers died in that attack, and two of them were American citizens. Others were injured, some for life. The surviving victims and family members sued Syria as well as the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the 'Palestinian Authority'. The victims of the Karnei Shomron attack won a financial judgment in court back in April 2005.

The 'Palestinians' subsequently ignored that judgment which brought the default judgment and penalties up to $300 million.

In a decision made public today, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon decided to wipe the slate clean, vacate the judgment and all penalties and allow the 'Palestinian Authority' to recontest the lawsuit.

Judge Leon said that though "the default was willful at the time, (the Palestinian organizations) clearly demonstrated their commitment to engaging in this litigation." Moreover, Leon noted, imposing a massive liability "on a struggling government, even if that government is not a recognized state, is not something this court takes lightly."

My, my. So, according to this judge, if you willfully murder or injure innocent people, get sued and then refuse to pay compensation out of sheer animosity, you shouldn't have to because he feels like you can't afford it.So you get to go to court all over again, six years after the initial judgement!

Aside from the fact that Judge Leon is sadly misinformed about the 'Palestinians'and the PLO struggling financially and being unable to pay, this is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. Judge Leon apparently decided to allow the PLO to reopen the case because, well, they're such nice guys and enforcing the previous decision for them to pay up would just be too painful.

The pain and suffering the victims and their families have endured and the pain of justice denied for almost a decade means nothing to him.

Per th einterim agreements, the Israeli govenrment turns over an estimated $1 to $1.4 billion per year to Abbas and the 'Palestinians' in tax revenues collected for customs and other tax levies. I've long recommended that they put these funds in escrow instead, to allow victims of 'Palestinian' terrorism to sue and collect judgments so that moral delinquents like Judge Leon wouldn't be troubled with making decisions they're obviously not equipped for.

( hat tip, the Elder)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Judiciary Committee Investigating SCOTUS Justice Kagan’s Involvement in ObamaCare

The House Judiciary Committee is launching an investigation of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's involvement with ObamaCare as a member of the Obama Administration to see if she is legally required to recuse herself from judging upcoming cases involving President Obama’s health-care law, and whether the answers she gave to questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings were fully accurate.

A federal law—28 U.S.C. 455—prohibits a Supreme Court justice from judging a case in which their impartiality can be reasonably questioned, or if they served as counsel or adviser on the case or expressed an opinion about its merits while in previous government service.

What's at question is the extent to which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kagan was involved in preparing the legal defense of ObamaCare, AKA the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) while she served as President Obama's Solicitor General.

Florida and Virginia filed suits challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare on the same day President Obama signed it into law, March 23, 2010. At that time, Kagan was still serving as Obama’s solicitor general and charged officially with defending the law legally. She remained solicitor general until after her May 10, 2010 nomination.

There's quite a bit of meat here, although the Department of Justice has been stalling and fighting tooth and nail to avoid releasing relevant documents. Lawsuits by Judicial Watch and the Media Research Center to follow up on Freedom of Information Act request that were initially stonewalled finally resulted in an initial release of 66 pages of DOJ e-mails, with the release of more documents pending a court decision:

One series of e-mails shows that on Jan. 8, 2010, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan personally assigned her top deputy, Neal Katyal, to handle the expected lawsuits against President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and that Katyal informed the Associate Attorney General’s office that Kagan “definitely” wanted her office involved in this issue.

This was two weeks after the Senate had passed PPACA—on Dec. 24, 2009--and four months before President Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court.

In the Jan. 8, 2010 email chain, Brian Hauck, the senior counsel to Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, emailed Neal Katyal, Kagan’s principal deputy, to tell him that Perrelli wanted “to put together a group to get thinking about how to defend against the inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.”

On receiving Hauck’s email, Katyal instantly emailed back to say: “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them. I’ll speak to [Solicitor General] Elena [Kagan] and designate someone.”

Katyal then forwarded Hauck’s email to Kagan and said: “I am happy to do this if you are ok with it.” He also offered Deputy Solicitor General Ed Kneedler as a candidate for handling the health-care issue, or the two of them together.Kagan instantly assigned Katyal. “You should do it,” she said by return email.{...}

“Brian,” Katyal said, “Elena would definitely like OSG to be involved in this set of issues. I will handle this myself, along with an Assistant from my office [name redacted] and will bring in Elena as needed.”

Other e-mails,generated after Kagan's nomination show a clear effort to 'co-ordinate' the message that she had been totally walled off from any discussion of Obamacare.

During Kagan’s confirmation hearings, she was asked directly about this issue. One question was whether she had ever been “asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation … or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation.” Another question asked her whether she had “ever offered any views or comments” on the same subjects.

Kagan answered both questions: “No.”

This is a huge deal, especially with the House Judiciary Committee involved. No, they likely won't impeach her if she lied or misstated, but they could definitely force her to recuse herself from judging any cases involving ObamaCare.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The Lawfare Continues: WI Judge Sumi Rules Union Law Not In Effect

In view of the controversy over whether the new Wisconsin collective bargaining law was properly published and thus in effect, Democrat Judge Maryann Sumi has revamped her previous ruling to say that the law was not published and thus is not in force.

This is quite a far cry from her original ruling, where she stated that she was merely ruling on whether the bill was in violation of Wisconsin's open meeting law and not ruling on the validity of the law itself...but hey, lawfare is lawfare.

And I'm sure her son, who runs a company that lobbies for public employee unions and her union activist husband are certainly pleased.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) called the order "judicial activism at its worst."

"Once again, one Dane County judge is doing everything she can to stand in the way of our efforts to improve the economy and create jobs," said a statement he issued.

Gov. Scott Walker's administration said it would comply and discontinue the implementation of the law, and the next step is the State Supreme Court, which has not said it will take the case yet.

Unlike some other state's Wisconsin's Supreme Court justices are elected, and the controversy has affected an upcoming race.

Incumbent David Prosser is being challenged by Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, for a ten-year term. The election is April 5th.

Kloppenburg is a former environmental lawyer and a fairly typical Left wing loon. Ordinarily she wouldn't have a chance, but money talks.

By Wisconsin law, each candidate receives $300,000 in public funds and is restricted to that amount, but public employee union groups have spent huge sums on her behalf. The Greater Wisconsin Committee, a leftist organizing group with deep union ties, has funneled $3 million into anti-Prosser advertising. One ad they're running around the clock falsely accuses Prosser of being 'soft on pedophiles' because he allowed a plea bargain for a Catholic priest some years ago when a court psychiatrist testified that forcing the two young victims to testify could cause them serious psychological trauma.

Even one of the victims, Troy Merryfield has come out publicly and said that Judge Prosser's decision was the right one at the time and asked that the ad be pulled. And Prosser, understandably angered, demanded that Kloppenburg disavow the ads "which she knows are false' but so far, she has refused.

“It is the worst ad that has ever been run in a judicial campaign,” he asserted. “If some third party ran an ad supporting me and attacking you, and it was despicable, and it was a lie, I would stand up and ask that the ad be pulled,” he argued. “You are not willing to do that, even at the request of the victim in the ad?”

Uhhh, nope. She isn't.

Right now, the Court has a 4-3 conservative majority. If Kloppenburg gets in, that changes...but not for some months, so Prosser would still likely be the justice that hears the case even if he loses - and the State Supreme Court agrees to hear it.

The Democrats and the public employee unions are also pouring serious money into the state in an attempt to gin up a recall of Walker and other Republican state legislators.

In many ways, this is the first battle of the 2012 election.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Justice Breyer- Maybe Protecting The Qu'ran Is Covered By 'Special Rights'

An amazing admission by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer..maybe burning a Qu'ran isn't covered by the First Amendment...

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” {..}

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think.And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Is Breyer planning on implementing laws against blasphemy...but only where Islam is concerned?

Given how the Court has reacted to things like submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine or desecrating Bibles, this is a Supreme Court justice essentially saying that in America, your right to be free of criticism of your religion and its artifacts likely depends on how violent you're willing to be in reaction to it.

Or maybe Breyer is really saying that Muslims have a disability and need to be treated differently than others?

Couldn't the the same standards applied to the Ground Zero Mosque, a place where people actually died? If Christians began threatening violence to stop it, is Justice Breyer saying that building the Mosque ought to be constitutionally prohibited?

Can you imagine how Justice Breyer would rule in a case involving Muslims threatening violence unless they got sharia courts in America ?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Judge Declares 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ( a Clinton appointee via Berkeley)has ruled that the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a violation of both the First Amendment and due process rights.

This has undoubtedly been coming for a long time, since the Clinton era's DADT policy was obviously a lukewarm make-do that resolved nothing. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.

In an interesting sidebar, her decision also cited DADT as bad military policy.

Citing trial testimony, she wrote, "All of these examples demonstrate that the act's restrictions on speech not only are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the government's substantial interests, but also actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals."

Discussing legal precedents, courtroom procedure and First Amendment rights is one thing, but a Berkeley-educated judge with little or no knowledge of the military commenting on military policy per se is probably about as appropriate as an Army sergeant major presuming to advise the judge on how to run her courtroom.

Judge Phillips granted a request for a legal injunction to stop the military from discharging gay service members. It remains to be seen whether the Obama Administration's Justice Department will appeal the ruling.

I doubt they will,and since legislation to repeal DADT is stalled in the Senate, (yet another instance of Democrats betraying their gay constituency)this will probably remain in limbo for awhile as something nobody feels any particular desire to grab on to. And since the injunction will likely remain in force, what we're probably going to have is an uneasy mixture of DADT and a lot of looking the other way in the military...which is pretty much the status quo from what my sources tell me.

(via memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

California's Prop 8 On Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional

Well, with this judge what did you expect?

Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ( who is an open homosexual) basically made his ruling based on the foggy grounds that there is a moral stigma to civil unions, basically an ipse dixit (legalese for 'because I said so') decision rather than any actual harm or existing precedent:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." Walker wrote.

Is this judge trying to legislate thought crime from the bench?

This is particularly interesting in California, where the domestic partnership laws were deliberately formulated to eliminate any differentiation in rights and privileges between heterosexual marriages and civil unions.

And since Judge Walker's scope was only supposed to be the legality of Prop 8 according to the California State constitution, I get the feeling that this was an effort to simply kick this upstairs...and it will undoubtedly hit the US Supreme Court.

The supporters of gay marriage are essentially risking all the marbles as they seek to impose this by judicial fiat.I have a feeling they may have over reached.

From a political standpoint, this is yet another disaster for the Democrats, as there is very little actual voter support for same sex marriage, even in a Blue state like California. I'd say it's worth at least five points at the polls.

It will be seen as yet another instance of activist judges attempting to invent whatever rights it wants to in the Constitution and to force the public to accept it.

UPDATE: Wolf Howling considers this decision the new Roe V. Wade. He's also got a number of other reactions....

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Democrats Vote To Confirm Obama's Pro-Rapist Judge Nominee To The Second Circuit

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted today in lockstep to confirm the promotion of Judge Robert Chatigny (above) to the second circuit Court of Appeals, in spite of unanimous GOP opposition to his handling of child pornography and rape cases as a district court judge.

Chatigny's specialty is using a legal doctrine called 'downward departure' in a series of cases involving defendants found guilty of child pornography, rape and sexual assault cases to reduce their sentences. Downward departure could best be defined as 'I have a disease that made me rape the nine-year old, so I'm really not responsible and therefore deserve a nominal sentence, so I can heal.'

One of the most famous cases Judge Chatigny was involved in was that of Michael Ross, the Roadside Strangler, a serial killer who raped, tortured and murdered eight young women before he was caught.

He went to unbelievable and unethical lengths to block Ross's execution based on the unbelievable ground that this serial killer’s “sexual sadism” was a mitigating factor, including hearing evidence on appeals not introduced the original record and threatening Ross' attorney's law license in chambers if he didn't seek yet another appeal. Chatigny did this even though the Roadside Strangler had been judged fully competent, admitted his sentence was appropriate and refused to challenge it.

Below is some footage of the Senate hearings, the reactions to Judge Chatigny's antics by Connecticut state prosecutors and especially revealing, footage of Michael Ross talking about his crimes.



Ross was finally executed - after 20 years of life in prison, largely thanks to Chatigny. That's something his victims and their families were denied.

This is the sort of creature Barack Hussein Obama wants on the bench as a federal judge.

Of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, only Dianne Feinstein refused to vote to confirm Chatigny - she abstained. Every Republican voted against him.

Women whom support Obama shouldn't be surprised by this nomination. If the president supports infanticide over and beyond the usual abortion debate, what makes you think he would draw the line at nominating a pro-rape judge?


An even more radical Obama nominee, Goodwin Liu, was previously approved on another straight party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Liu's a Berkeley law professor who believes that the Constitution requires racial quotas and welfare, and is hostile to “free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government.” Apparently he never read the Bill of Rights, a recitation of the rights government doesn't have. If Liu is confirmed by the full Senate, he'd sit on the already quasi-wacky Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then there's Obama’s recent Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, who bailed on her duty to defend federal laws protecting crime victims, while in her current position as Solicitor General. And that's just what we know about her so far, aside from the fact she has no practical legal experience whatsoever.

I'd say this was a throwback to the uber-Leftist Warren Court, except that these kind of nominations go even further and make the Warren Court look moderate by comparison. This is beyond 'liberal'.

Judicial appointments are among the most far reaching and long lasting effects of a president. Republicans and Democrats who still retain their respect for justice, basic common sense and decency need to band together to oppose these Obama appointments and any others he makes in a similar vein.

Remember, it could be your child next.

And work hard to get these dangerous people out of office in November.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!