Preserve American Experiment – FIRE Mueller

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2017

There is a slew of revelations exposing that Robert Mueller, Team Mueller, Obama Administration and all thing crooked Clinton family becoming available. These revelations are being pooh-poohed by the Dems and the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) as nothing to see here, move along, don’t believe your eyes etc., etc. and etc.

A few examples:

Gregg Jarrett: How an FBI official with a political agenda corrupted both Mueller, Comey investigations – 12/5/17

Massive criminal conspiracy unravels: Hillary Clinton took $145M from Russians to sell out the U.S. uranium supply to America’s enemies (and the FBI knew all along) – 10/18/17

Devin Nunes, House Intel Committee Prepare to Find FBI in Contempt for Mueller Cover-up – 12/2/17

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow - 10/17/17 06:00 AM EDT

Top Investigator on Mueller’s Team Extolled Yates for Defying Trump Travel Ban – 12/5/17

Mueller Probe’s Anti-Trump Bias Exposed AGAIN and AGAIN – 12/5/17

POLITICAL PROSECUTION: Mueller’s Hit Squad Covered For Clinton And Persecutes Trump Associates – 12/6/17 1:09 PM

Mueller deputy praised DOJ official after she defied Trump travel ban order: 'I am so proud – 12/5/17

The question that must be asked: Can the swamp be drained with such Leftist Deep State infiltration embedded in the Government (with the aid of Leftist MSM) be overcome by a President devoted to change the paradigm of Marxist-Socialist propaganda indoctrination of younger Americans?

This is a question to mull over while you decide to uphold America’s Founding Fathers’ paradigm of personal Liberty and a government accountable to WE THE PEOPLE or to keep flowing with Obama’s fundamental transformation of American culture and law to fit a Living Constitution paradigm that enables government elitists (Executive and Judicial Branches) to tell what to believe, think and say. Your decision probably will define America’s future.

Your decision will determine how you feel about this so far mythical speech about President Donald Trump firing Robert Mueller to preserve the United States Constitution.

Sign the Fire Mueller Petition

[The NY Sun post below is excellent but is a bit too erudite for my own good. I am going to assume at least a few of you are in the same position. So when you read a word in bold text followed by an asterisk (*), a very important definition will be below the NY Sun post.]

JRH 12/6/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Private Group: WorldChatNews Email List)

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*****************

The Mueller Firing Speech

Editorial of The New York Sun

December 5, 2017

Following is the text, drafted by The New York Sun, of remarks it would like to see President Trump deliver:

Good evening: A year ago next month I took the Constitutional Oath that has been sworn by every president since George Washington. It binds me to do two things: To faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It’s an oath I swore before God.

Now I have concluded that, to redeem those two vows, I must dismiss the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, and the officers he has assembled, ostensibly to look into allegations that there may have been collusion between my campaign and the Russian camarilla(*). I have this morning placed the prosecutors’ premises under federal seal, pending a decision by House Judiciary Committee.

From the beginning, I never believed the appointment of such a prosecutor was necessary, or even justified. It was always perfectly within the authority and competence of the Justice Department to investigate and, if due cause were found, prosecute any wrongdoing by any member of my administration — including my daughter and son-in-law.

I acquiesced in the initial work of Mr. Mueller’s office because I believed that I was not a target of the investigation. As Mr. Mueller’s work has unfolded, however, suggestions have been made that his office may be investigating my own conduct. Given that possibility, I believe that the investigation must be halted, and, if it is to be resumed in respect of my own conduct, may be recommenced only by the House.

That is a constitutional bright line. My opponent in the recent campaign brought before her nominating convention the Gold Star father Khizr Khan to ask whether I had even read the Constitution. The answer is yes. I would not hold myself out as a constitutional scholar. I know, though, that it is only the House of Representatives that can investigate a sitting president for crimes and misdemeanors.

That is a provision of the same Constitution that I have sworn an oath to preserve protect and defend. That oath, incidentally, is different from the requirement of the members of Congress and the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Constitutions requires them to swear only to support the Constitution. Only the president is required by the Constitution to swear to preserve, protect, and defend our national parchment.

I had barely sworn that oath when it became apparent to me that the Constitution needs protecting — and not just from our external foes but also from those who would seek to subvert it by refusing to accept the results of the election that Vice President Pence and I won. This quickly became apparent to me after the vote by a campaign of leaks of the most sensitive conversations I was conducting.

And by the emergence of what its adherents are fain(**) to call a “resistance” against the decision of the voters. We have just learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s office itself have been infected by political sentiments and colluded to keep from the Congress knowledge of the political sentiments against me being expressed by a senior FBI figure in the investigation.

This is a shocking development. It was exposed not by the Republican press but by the Washington Post and the New York Times. They reported over the weekend that the special prosecutor had kept from House investigators the discovery that a senior investigator in the special prosecutor’s office was demoted for sending anti-Trump messages to a mistress.

I commend to you the editorial in the nation’s most trusted newspaper. Not only did the special prosecutor withhold evidence of that from Congress but he did so despite a subpoena that could have led to the disclosure of this perfidy. That is obstruction of Congress, a prosecutable offense. So I have decided to uphold my oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Effective immediately, the special prosecutor and his subordinates are relieved of their duties and trusts under the United States. I have instructed federal officers to secure their premises pending any subpoena from the House, which is the body that is constitutionally authorized to investigate — and decide whether to impeach — the president. This administration will play no games with the House.

Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States requires, inter alia(***), preserving, and protecting each branch of its government, including the presidency. I have learned much in the past year, but nothing more clearly than how important it is to protect the office I hold. This means — under what the courts call the “rule of necessity” — that I have a responsibility to act even when it is awkward.

Our country is on the brink of war in Korea, and being maneuvered against by determined enemies on every continent. These challenges may be no more pressing than the workaday assignment to rebuild our economy. All, though, are pressing. Which is why our Founding Fathers decided against dividing the executive powers among a committee or splitting them with a special counsel. They chose instead to vest them in a single president — a principle that, to the best of my ability, I am preserving, protecting, and defending today to make America and its Constitution great again.

+++++++++

Asterisk Notes

*Camarilla:

Merriam-Webster - a group of unofficial often secret and scheming advisers; also: cabal

MACMILLAN DICTIONARY - a group of advisers, usually a secret group who are involved in a plot

Wordnik.com - from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

n. A group of confidential, often scheming advisers; a cabal.

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

n. A secret, usually sinister, group of conspiring advisors close to the leadership; a cabal

from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English

n. The private audience chamber of a king.

n. A company of secret and irresponsible advisers, as of a king; a cabal or clique.

from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia

n. A company of secret counselors or advisers; a cabal; a clique.

n. Synonyms Faction, Junto, etc. See cabal.

n. A small chamber or cell, as in the brain.

from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

n. a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue

**fain:

Merriam-Webster -

1 archaic: happy, pleased

2 archaic: inclined, desirous

3 a: willing

§  he was very fain, for the young widow was "altogether fair and lovely … " —Amy Kelly

b: being obliged or constrained: compelled

§  Great Britain was fain to devote its whole energy … to the business of slaying and being slain —G. M. Trevelyan

***inter alia:

Law.com - (in-tur eh-lee-ah) prep. Latin for "among other things." This phrase is often found in legal pleadings and writings to specify one example out of many possibilities. Example: "The judge said, inter alia, that the time to file the action had passed."

_____________________

Preserve American Experiment – FIRE Mueller

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2017

____________________

The Mueller Firing Speech

© 2002-2017 TWO SL LLC, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

The New York Sun

Newt Gingrich: Impeach judges … PT 5

Even back in 2009 Newt Gingrich understood the dangers of Islam and Left Wing Judges. In America Newt implies profiling Islam is appropriate in these days of the Global War on Terror. He also understands there is a Constitutional method to reign in Federal Judges and Justices if the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch team up to remove judgeships.

JRH 12/8/11 (Hat Tip: Tony Newbill)

*******************************

Newt Gingrich: Impeach judges - Crush and Replace the Left - 2012 "Victory or Death!" Pt.5

Posted by BlogspotKitmanTV

Posted Nov 27, 2009

President Obama Protect America’s National Interest

John R. Houk

© March 25, 2011

I finished reading a Norma Zager post that begins with a bit of sarcasm of President Barack Hussein Obama’s decision to establish a No-Fly Zone in Libya that enables the Libyans that wish to be free of a nutcase dictator like Moammar Qaddafi to have a chance at freedom.

Frankly I find it a little amusing that BHO’s Leftist base and Conservatives alike are castigating BHO for this act. The Leftists are upset that Obama may have gotten America involved in a Middle War ala President George Bush. Many Conservatives who correctly do not trust the President Obama agenda rail about the abuse of the Constitution because the President neither had Congressional approval nor a Congressional declaration of war.

Here’s the thing for me. Libyan civilians were being fired upon by Qaddafi’s loyal contingent in the Libyan army as well as by mercenaries hired for the very purpose of killing anti-Qaddafi Libyans. The thing that became too much for Europeans, Americans and the Arab League was that Qaddafi was slaughtering Libyans with aircrafts and big guns such as tanks. It was beginning to look like genocide.

Now I am sure that Europeans (really the French and the British) and the U.S. government began to weigh Qaddafi’s genocide instrumentation in the light of the flow of oil to Western markets – especially Europe. Considerations were probably based on if Qaddafi quickly beat down his opposition perhaps the oil would flow. However, if the Libyans rebelling against Qaddafi’s 40 year despotism succeeded in a protracted civil war perhaps the flow of oil would be stopped up like a dam. I am guessing it was decided that if a protracted period was involved it would be ultimately profitable to get rid of Qaddafi; ergo the decision to wipe out Qaddafi’s air force and to seriously damage Qaddafi’s big guns especially land to air defenses became the politically correct consensus.

As a lowly no-name blogger I can’t prove the reason for America, France and the UK to defend Libyans from genocide was based on the effect of oil flow but I am betting it is a pretty good guess.

Regardless of a coalition of National Interests deciding to attack Qaddafi, the decision to get rid of Qaddafi is just as morally good as it was for President Bush to bring down the butcher of Bagdad Saddam Hussein. I can understand the consistency of American Leftists railing at Obama; however Conservatives should be getting behind BHO’s decision. To not do so is morally reprehensible.

I still regard President BHO as a deceptive Leftist with an agenda to transform America away from its Christian roots and the intentions of the Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whatever the reasoning that inspired the President to proceed with the act of attack, it is a humane action.

On September 25, 2001 the Deputy Counsel in the Justice Department wrote a memorandum to then President G.W. Bush that provided legal precedent, Constitutional analysis and marked events in history in which Presidents acted without a formal declaration of war. It is a quite lengthy memorandum justifying GW’s ability to launch an attack on Afghanistan to seek the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on American soil. In full disclosure I have to admit I only read half of it.

The key point of that memorandum was a distinction of the Constitution’s use of Congress “declaring war” as opposed to the Executive Branch – President – “making war” without Congressional consent. The distinction being that Congress validates a war by declaring which enables the President to prepare money allocation as seen fit to make war as the Chief Executive and the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. Of course extra funding needed would still need Congressional Approval but the declaration of war enables the President to not have to justify every dot and penny being spent in the execution of a war.

The memorandum also clarifies that the President has authority to defend the Homeland and American interests outside of the nation militarily without Congressional authorization. After the lengthy Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act (WPA) with the intention of limiting the broad way in which a Chief Executive can embroil America in a war without Congressional input. However later, many critics realized that the WPA actually gave a President unbridled power to wage war for 60 days without Congressional input. This alone would empower President Obama to execute the military operation in Libya; however critics of the WPA maintain there is a Constitutional issue with the WPA not being in the Constitution ergo cannot exist without a Constitutional Amendment.

The memorandum in 2001 pretty much justifies the WPA act in the case of responding to attacks at home and attacks abroad of American National Interests. For example President Carter would have been well within his Executive Power to launch a military attack on Iran without Congressional approval because Iranian lackeys of Ayatollah Khomeini attacked American sovereign space provided for the U.S. Embassy in 1979. Of course Carter did not do so.

Carter won his 1976 election because of the bad taste of the Vietnam War and of President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal which left a huge mistrust of Presidential power in the American public’s mind. Even I voted for Carter. My vote was not based on a Leftist/Right Wing political spectrum but purely on Nixon’s criminal activities which disparaged the Office of President which had a further picture of corruption when unelected President Gerald Ford gave President Nixon a blanket Executive Pardon so that Nixon could never be prosecuted in a non-Presidential capacity.

With great hopes in a President Carter that would transform the Office of President into a trusted Office again, America elected him over Gerald Ford in 1976. Carter’s continuous flip-flopping on domestic and foreign policy soon became evidence of President Carter’s Presidential incompetence. The final nail in the Carter Administration came into fruition of his handling of Iranian unrest over the Shah of Iran that led to the eventual Islamic purist psycho-dictatorship of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini overcame the rivalry of Marxist revolutionaries and secular republic factions to wrest absolute control of Iran from the Shah. How did Khomeini get there?

The Khomeini/Marxist/Secularists received a boost from President Carter who sold out American ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi because the Shah used vicious police state tactics of the SAVAK secret police to get rid of anti-Shah Iranians via persecution, torture and murder. Carter was correct that the Shah’s methods were evil; however instead of slow reform Carter pushed for immediate reform which led to displeased Iranians to get behind a greater evil in Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini went on to allow the U.S. Embassy to be invaded which resulted in torture of American citizens that had diplomatic immunity for about a year until the last day of Carter’s Presidency in which President Reagan assumed Office. My evident displeasure with the Carter Presidency is a digressive story of failure. The point is Carter failed to use his power of Commander-in-Chief to plan an aggressive punitive plan to make Khomeini and his supporters suffer for a major breach of international protocol of State sovereignty. There were no contingency plans for the first use of a special force that came into existence to rescue the Embassy Hostages. When it failed Carter was left in the weak position of accepting humiliation from the psycho-Ayatollah about the release of American Embassy hostages. (Incidentally one of the leaders of the Embassy assault was none other than Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Presidents Reagan and Clinton both used Commander-in-Chief Privilege denying the limitations of the WPA although ultimately both consulted with Congress within the 60-90 period of WPA rendering moot any Constitutional Executive-Legislative confrontations. President George H.W. Bush ultimately had Congressional approval in the First Gulf War against Iraq even though it was not a declared war. President G.W. Bush ultimately had full Congressional approval for Afghanistan and the hotly debated support for the second Iraq War.

In this era when communication is near instantaneous and information about genocide and slaughters are difficult to hide, it is incumbent upon the leader of the most power military in the world to demonstrate acts of military humanitarianism. In America, humanitarianism and Constitutional authority for the Chief Executive are not necessarily a compatible proposition. However, the Constitution does allow the Chief Executive to use military action Constitutionally to protect American National Interests. Arguably the Libyan civil war hampers the oil market which in turns affects everything from gas prices to Wall Street. It is easy to sell the voters on the fact it is a humanitarian military expedition in which America helped initiate but intends to transfer military operations to another military authority. To comply with the U.S. Constitution the President has to demonstrate that the psycho-Qaddafi refusal to leave Libya’s leadership position hurts the American National Interests.

President Obama is a Leftist transformationist in the style of Antonio Gramsci; nonetheless any effort to stop the genocide of Libyan people no matter the actual reasons is a good thing. Let us all pray that BHO does not slip back into appeasement ideology thinking things will mysteriously work itself out via negotiated diplomacy. Negotiated diplomacy rarely if ever works with insane leaders or leadership blocs.

JRH 3/25/11

Discussion on Judge Bolton’s Stripping Arizona SB 1070

John R. Houk
© July 31, 2010

Inside Passage a frequent commenter on my VOX blog may be described as a Center-Left Independent. In my train of thought that means he supports some Leftist concepts and supports some elements of the Slanted Right in a mixed bag that bugs both the entrenched Left and the entrenched Right (which would be me).

Inside Passage was totally with the Obama Administration’s efforts to use the Judiciary to hamstring Arizona State Immigration enforcement of it SB 1070. Inside Passage believes Arizona overstepped her Sovereignty by meddling in affairs that should be sacrosanct to the U.S. Congress as vested power granted by the U.S. Constitution. You probably imagine I did not share his view.

To view all the comments between me and Inside Passage go to my VOX post HERE.

This particular post is in response to this comment by Inside Passage:

We're not in disagreement here as far as the government goes. They are failing to do their job, and failing dramatically. I totally understand that. Our job is to force them to do theirs, not to break the constitution into little bitty pieces as the means to the end by doing their job for them.


Understand that this is exactly what SB1070 is. The states have no right to put "teeth" into any LEGISLATIVE powers, just as the government has no right to overstep into state rights. I'm going to pull a constitutional quote here, because it's pure relevance:


All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Note the word "vested". That means fixed or absolute, without contingency. That may sound dictatorial in nature to you, but it is intentional to preserve the balance of powers. Each of the three branches is vested with specific powers that no other branch may infringe upon. That means that no, the states are absolutely NOT allowed to tinker with Congressional powers. The constitution gets very explicit about it to make sure that people understand that the lines exist. It's the preservation of states rights in the 10th amendment that convinced states to join the Union in the first place, knowing that they would not be allowed to keep their own armies, declare war or render treaties or any of those other wonderful congressional powers. Or establish supreme law, such as the judicial branch has. Or ... so on. You get that right? That states can't just add 'teeth' to any governmental power they like to claim a power they're not supposed to have?


Kobach knows that perfectly well, but being a lawyer and being teamed up with a power-grabber like Pearce, they have no reason to care.


I agree, the federal government makes a regular habit of stepping on state sovereignty and rights to an unconstitutional degree, but that doesn't justify the same behavior by the states. This is the constitution they're breaking here. They need to stop it. right. now.


As far as Scott Brown goes, I referenced him because he supposedly represents the face of change. Yeah, he's the face of change alright, that's why his name is all over the T.E.A (stripping Americans of citizenship without due process), the so-called Kill Switch Cyberspace Bill, and just recently on Charles Rangel's HR 5741 which allows the government to force citizens between 18 and 42 to be forced into presidential service. Yeah, that's awesome, Scott Brown's not just a RINO, he's an AINO - American in name only, selling out his country to that little clique that strangely includes democrats and republicans both.


Just think, if McCain had been elected, you would be dealing with the exact same crap right now, because his name is on at least two of the same bills, as well as political waste like Lieberman and Rangel.

I am focusing my response solely on the Constitutionality of Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling removing the teeth from Arizona SB 1070.

Inside Passage you quote Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

There are 10 Sections in Article One. So would it be logical to read all Ten Sections to reference “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”?

It seems to me that Sections Two through Ten deal with the selection process and terms of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Specifically Section Eight relates the powers of Congress to make Laws that Sovereign States cannot:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section Ten enlightens the individual Sovereign States the laws they specifically CANNOT pass in State Legislatures:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

I have to be honest with you Inside Passage; I do not see any vested powers enumerated in Article One that prevents the Sovereignty of the State of Arizona from enacting a law that does not contradict any Federal Laws vested in Congress. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment which amends any part of the original Constitution or clarifies ambiguities that may exist in the U.S. Constitution (which includes Article One), elaborates that laws not vested in Congress or Constitutionally in the Federal government is open to State Sovereignty to legislate:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Adding teeth to the enforcement of Federal Law enacted by the U.S. Congress does not contradict the rule of law; therefore the State of Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070 is not prohibited by the Constitution. Further more if a non-contradictory Law it means the rule of law is the same; ergo adding teeth to enforcement is not prohibited yet indeed the teeth thus reserved for the State of Arizona to enact a law supportive of the Congressional Law.

In relation to this the Federal Judiciary is only Constitutionally able to rule if Arizona’s Immigration Law is prohibited by the Congress. If the Federal Law does not prohibit a Sovereign State from adding teeth to a standing Law, Court cannot strike down the State Law. Rather the Court should have directed the plaintiff with is the Federal government under the management of the Executive Branch to refer back to the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress then in turn with the power vested in it by Article One could indeed prevent Arizona’s Immigration Law from becoming the rule of law in Arizona. The Executive Branch is limited in what it requires of Sovereign States of the Union by the power vested in the U.S. Constitution first and the power vested in Congress. Forcing action by Executive fiat that is outside of the U.S. Constitution or passed by Congress comes in the realm of the Judiciary to rule according to the Constitution. Again Judicial ruling is to the merit of Constitutionality and not to form policy which is derived from the U.S. Constitution first and the laws passed by the power vested in Congress. Execution of policy is in the prevue of the Executive Branch. And Policy is made by the Executive Branch as interpreted by the law of the land vested in the power of Congress.

So for clarity sake my position is that the Judiciary was operating extra-Constitutionally in making a ruling in accordance to the ability or inability of the Federal government to manage a policy burden that might be created by the State of Arizona bringing more illegal aliens for the Federal government to process in deportation or breaking laws. A Federal policy ability ruling was ridiculous! The Obama Administration should have shown its distaste for the Arizona Immigration Law by going to Congress to ask for more money to comply with the extra influx illegal aliens or to ask Congress to pass a new law according to the power vested in it by the U.S. Constitution to limit or extricate Arizona’s Illegal Alien enforcement.

We both know such a move by President Obama would be the political death sentence on election day 2010 and probably election day 2010. So what path did President pursue? He tapped a Left Wing activist Judge which has discarded the Constitution by Judicial fiat through making policy rather than ruling on the issues of Constitutionality.

Inside Passage that is wrong!

JRH 7/31/10