Judges Gone Wild

If you want one reason to vote Republican----and by now, you've seen the Democrats inflict so much damage on this country that I'm sure you've got a million reasons to vote GOP. But if you're still looking for just one reason to vote Republican, here it is, in one word: judges.

Right now in America, we've got Judges Gone Wild. Joe Francis would be proud of the men and women in black, because the nation's judges have gone wilding. They're doing the legal equivalent of lifting their black robes and flashing us.

Over the past week or so, we've had one major good decision, and two major atrocious ones. First, the good: a federal judge in Virginia ruled that that state's legal challenge to Obamacare can go forward. Now, for the bad decisions: 1. A federal judge in Arizona blocked the most important parts of that state's illegal immigration bill, gutting it like a fish and stripping Arizona of the perfectly Constitutional defenses it tried to put in place; and 2. A judge in California overruled the will of the people in that state and overturned their voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

So in this last week, we've had one sound decision and two activist-crazy decisions.

Some judges carry the Constitution. Some carry the ACLU charter.

Which ones do you want on the bench, deciding our lives?

Come November, come 2012, one word: judges.

Comments

[Dgscol]

Judge Bolton was intimidated by thousands of threats, proving that the Hispanics live outside our jurisdiction. We are being subjected to their "due process". Witness Ramos and Compean, and now Sheriff Joe with a bounty on his head. The appeal in the 9th circuit in San Francisco, should have a change of venue, just because the judges are likely to be influenced by the large Latino population there as a result of it being a sanctuary city. In the Mission district, Sureño and Norteño gangs engage in open violence throughout the neighborhood. The notorious Central American gang MS-13 is also active.

[gringoman]

/////But if you're still looking for just one reason to vote Republican, here it is, in one word: judges.//////

Yes, yes, yes, yes....

But, but, but,but....

Monica previously pointed out that the Arizona decision on our busted border, (in effect the Ruling Class slapping Americans in the face again--gringo), was rendered by a Judge (Susan Bolton) who was appointed by Slick Willy.

Good point. Valid. Compelling.

But Monica failed to mention that Bolton was RECOMMENDED to Clinton by Republican Senator Kyl.

Not so good.

As for today's decision by yet another hack Judge who over-ruled 7 million Californians (of all colors)who voted against same-sex "marriage", we can understand Monica not wanting to raise the issue of whether a homosexual aka "gay" in a black robe should have recused himself. Republicans don't do things like that. But Princess fails to point out that this Judge, according to no less than Michael Savage and DJ, was appointed by President Bush the Elder.

Oh, Dear....

At times like this I fear for our Monica's credibility.

[gringoman]

By Ashby Jones
This just in: San Francisco federal judge Vaughn Walker has shot down California’s Proposition 8, the initiative passed by voters in 2008 that banned same-sex marriage.

Judge Walker said Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. Click here for the opinion.

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Walker’s ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/04/breaking-news-sf-judge-shoots-down-proposition-8

We know that this George Bush-appointed Judge (Sorry 'bout that, Monica)somehow got through law school and did not have the decency or sense of honor to recuse himself in a huge same-sex marriage case despite his own orientation.

But can he, or anyone else, show where the US Constitution makes marriage--of ANY orientation---a right? In human societies marriage has always been a privilege granted by that society, not a "right."

Of course Libworld will argue its agenda into a "right" and cite and construe and spin away, but nothing in the Constitution specifically calls marriage a "right," and even the Marxists know it. The Founders would not get involved with "marriage." They understood this was clearly the business of the people, and not some bureaucrats or legalniki or other politicos.

Once you see what the Constitution says and does not say, there is nothing for a hack judge to "protect" and jabber about it being "independently meritorious." You can't "protect" what doesn't exist. You don't get a license for a "right." A license is granted after meeting certain requirements. It's a privilege. Sometimes even drunk drivers can lose the privilege to drive, unless they shop for the right judge to give them the "right."

[gringoman]

A couple of things to think about regarding the mosque or community center.

The First Amendment is pretty clear about freedom of religion. If as Justice Alito finally upheld in the Chicago decision the Second applies to state and local governments as well as federal, the First must also. If the Constitution doesn't always apply, we can never depend on it.

If as some claim the leader behind this center is an extremist and will attract potential domestic terrorists, isn't it a good idea to have them congregating where they can be more easily watched? The really dangerous ones are the ones who keep a low enough profile that nobody notices them.

Posted by: borderbriar | August 04, 2010 at 12:27 PM

The Constitution grants freedom of religion. It does not grant freedom of location. The Founders obviously understood that such detail can only be decided by the people affected by it. Even liberals recognize this by implication. In NYC, for example, there are literally thousands of zoning ordnances for where such and such entity can locate, despite the Constitutional right of free enterprise. Libworld is clearly being either stupid or disingenuous by equating the right to be with the right of location. Libworld, whether or not prompted by lucrative associations with oil muslims, is trying to twist a Constitutional right (religion) into a right that does not exist (location of a mosque in defiance of the people who do not have deals with rich and powerful muslims)

[SteveOk]

We no longer live in a representative democracy in this country. We are ruled by tyrants in black robes who believe they have the right to make law up and block anything they disagree with. This is why the Democratic Party has waged a war against conservative judges in the US Senate confirmation process. They know if they can pack the Courts, like FDR attempted to do in the 1930s, with liberal judges then they can achieve their leftwing agenda without a vote.

FDR made an unbelievabel power grab in the 1930s by packing the Court in order to keep the Supreme Court from overturning his program. He wanted to simply appoint more liberal Judges to the Court so they would rule in his favor, even when there wasn't any openings on the Court.

Present day Democrats have turned the nomination process into a 3 ring circus in order to block conservative judges and appoint judges who will implement their liberal agenda by edict from the bench.

The decision today by a Federal Judge in California is exactly what the Democrats in the Senate want. They want Judges to legislate from the bench what the American people oppose and what they can't pass in Congress.

[borderbriar]

If marriage is to be regarded as only a privilege to be doled out by government, it might be good to brush up on the effects of the Nuremberg Laws. The real issue is whether people will have equal protection under the law. Is this really a good time to be submitting to sharia law which is what underlies all this fuss? Majority rule has its place, but the founders were very conscious in attempting to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

When will we be free of the strict constructionist BS? Are we to accept the fact that the Constitution does not specifically state that the government can regulate the borders to mean it cannot stop anyone from coming in? Or are we to make a more reasonable interpretation that its obligation to provide a common defense and promote the general welfare includes such things as securing the borders? If I remember right it was in the Heller decision that Justice Scalia asserted the Constitution was not written for lawyers. It was meant to mean what it would mean as understood by the average voter.

Some more insight into the marriage issue can be found here:
http://www.desmailesviews.com/col42.htm

[gringoman]

Given shaky attemps at nation building, nuclear threats, uncontrolled borders, an expanding corp of suicide bombers and other threats that might deserve our concern, it is astonishing that so many people seem to think there is nothing more important for the government to do than to suppress recognition of same sex marriage.

Some more insight into the marriage issue can be found here:
http://www.desmailesviews.com/col42.htm

Posted by: borderbriar | August 04, 2010 at 11:14 PM

The above criticizes the millenial instincts of most human beings in the uS and also around the world, and their pressure on Government to respect their instincts. Will it be equally critical of a militant minority which hopes to use Government and black robes to enforce and propogate the contrary, with same-sex "marriage" being only the likely fore-runner to mandates, quotas, set-asides, and "bias transgressions" throughout society, its schools, its work places etc, all in the name of "fighting discrimination" against homosexuality?

Can it even admit that same-sex "marriage" is not even an issue for most homosexuals? It's basically the Holy Grail for a militant minority of a minority,who know how to push power buttons, many so insecure they feel this is the way to gain a "dignity" they apparently can't generate among themselves. Yes, what is all the fuss about? They want to be left alone but they do not want to leave society alone and the one institution that helps, under great pressures already, to hold that society together without Big Goverment dictatorship.

What naughty children, stomping their angry feet.

[Ummahgummah]

.

wow, Monica, that is SO LOGICAL. Vote Republican so that judges appointed by Bush Sr. don't do any more damage than they've already done.

I can't wait until Mike Hucksterbee starts appointing judges.

Wow. GREAT. JUST GREAT.

[where's the barf bag]

.

[Ummahgummah]

.

Since the Federal government is in open defiance of our immigration laws by not enforcing them, could they be sued to make them?

What would happen if Arizona went ahead and enforced their law anyway?

Is this the time that the Republic starts to break apart?

Time to move to Texas?

.

[DJ]

I see Lindsey Graham is all over the MSM pushing his latest con job by attempting to push a sneaky plan which will grant amnesty by another name (path to citizenship) to 12 to 20 million illegals. His sales pitch is: as part of a “comprehensive immigration reform package” ban the practice of granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies.” I for one am not buying his crap. What Graham is doing is slyly offering a seeming compromise to those of us who are vehemently against amnesty. He thinks he can persuade enough of the opposition to buy into his McCain/Kennedy style amnesty ruse if it’s coupled with strict security measures on the border along with an end to the policy of granting automatic citizenship to anchor babies.

I’m afraid he may succeed in his plan given the sorry state the Republican Party is in. Moreover, be assured if Grahamnesty and his band of RINOs succeed, I can assure you the ban on “anchors babies” will subsequently be stripped from the bill via an activist Federal judge or the Supreme Court when it becomes 5/4 left leaning. Furthermore, Grahamnesty and McCain etal are well aware the ban on anchor babies will be overturned. These people are despicable.

[gringoman]

Gov Mike Huckabee this morning's guest on Imus In The Morning. They discussed the Afghan war strategy and the need for clarity of our mission in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has swallowed up armies before.He also weighed in on the plans to build a mosque so close to ground zero.

http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/08/imus-guest-gov-mike-huckabee.html

Posted by: Ree | August 04, 2010 at 05:32 PM

I-Cowboy's reaction to one black robe who overthrew the votes of 7 million Californians yesterday? He applauds it.
Channeling his Upper West Side lib, he wants to know what the fuss is about? Who cares if they want to get "married"? He has good homo friends. They're fine people yada-yada.

Suddenly he makes a little confession. When these "special" friends (of the male gender) come out to the ranch, he does not--repeat--not want them doing certain things where everybody can see it. He doesn't like that one bit. I-Cowboy virtually admits that the sight of two men acting out is enough to make him throw up the habanero pepper that Deirdre has him eating for his prostate. Hey, dude! What happened to yo Upper West Side lib?

I-Cowboy clearly has no idea of the anti-Discrimination Industry that will spring up after Libworld's Ruling Class institutionalizes these "rights" by federally enforcing, against the national will, "marriage" for homosexuals AKA gays.

If only he could get sued right now for his "bias crime" of pressuring the AKA "gays" out at the ranch i.e. his demanding that homo couples not do in public that which he doesn't mind heteros doing, thereby revealing his discrimination, prejudice and bias, worthy of punitive damages for the amount of (make it good now).

Does the I-Guy have even a clue? Half a clue? One millionth?

[Ree]

Posted by: gringoman | August 05, 2010 at 01:31 PM

Gringoman does the Judge in California have a Constitutional Argument?

I agree that the will of the majority should rue the day, but doesn't the state of California have to comply with the U.S. Constitution?

Look at the legal argument - remove the heat, does the Judge have a Constitutional standing?

We are a Republic our form of Government is Democracy. We have majority rule with minority protection.

Where does that leave Gay Americans?

As far as Imus goes he was born 70 years ago, that's a different generation. He likes to play Willie Nelson's song, that Sh1t Ain't Right. He does have Gay friends if you are hetero, does that mean the Gay lifestyle would be attractive to you? Probably not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4CXlIYjyE

[mjfell]

Consider this:

While it's vitally important to change the makeup of the House and the Senate in 2010, once that election is over Americans must retain focus and work towards winning the White House back in 2012.

If that business hating, wealth redistributing, black separatist preaching, pathological liar remains in the White House, the Supreme Court's makeup will be radically altered for the worse.

[mjfell]

Of course, this is on top of studying the Judges on your local ballot to ensure you vote for Judges who follow, rather than interpret the laws of our land.

[DJ]

Legalizing "gay" marriage marks another milestone on what the noted Marxist Antonio Gramsci termed "the long march through the institutions." "Gay " marriage, I believe, definitely undermines what little moral sanity there's left in the secular-liberal decadent West. We've lost, or are fast losing sight of the basic assumption: "morality is an absolute truth, not a social construct. May God help us all!

Read about Gramsci's plan:

http://americanvision.org/1417/has-ghost-of-antonio-gramsci-returned/

[Dgscol]

People are just about fed up with all this gay marriage bs. What the public wants is actually "Don't ask don't tell". If Gays are impudent enough to request marriage, they should be arrested. It is more than just this funny sort of marriage at stake. It is saying that homosexuality is accepted, and just an alternate lifestyle in all our institutions or else we are discriminatory.

We should never allow that to be the case.

Similarly, in the question of the Mosque, it is not just a matter of religion. They are part of a culture coming from a foreign country with which we are at war, that uses their churches to recruit terrorists. To say we accept them on religious grounds, is to say it is okay for them to recruit terrorists and bomb us. We should not be talking about accepting their Mosque, but arresting their recruiters.

[Dgscol]

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
February 07, 2010|By Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.

The judge himself - thinks the public accepts him under DADT. According to people who attended the trial, Walker did not even listen to those who defended the results of Prop 8, similar to a judicial dictator.

[Complex Napolean]

For those of you who wonder, the name "Vaugn" means petite, as in a petite little dictator.

[Dgscol]

We cannot legislate social acceptance of homosexuality, only the freedom to choose one's sexual orientation. We cannot call "the acceptance" of homosexuality, a right. It is a right, that we can chose our religious beliefs also, and to call homosexuality a sin, is a well-established right.
Just because it is in vogue to break down the rules we have lived by, does not mean our traditions and heritage are not relevant and important to our society.

I am afraid Kagan will slam dunk the issue just like Vaughny.

[Scott]

The liberal mind: When the people vote the liberal way, then the majority vote wins no matter what. After all, the people voted for it, right?

When the people vote conservative way, then we just cannot let that happen. We must find one UNELECTED liberal judge throw the vote out (and likely the Constitution with it) and impose the liberal agenda.

[mjfell]

ICE chiefs slammed with "no confidence" vote from agents:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m8d5-ICE-chiefs-slammed-with-no-confidence-vote-from-agents

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents overwhelmingly say that their department's leadership has become politicized to the point of affecting the effectiveness of ICE.

ICE agents through their union claim their leaders have little regard for the safety of American people. Their union has released a letter announcing its recent unanimous “vote of no confidence” in ICE agency heads, accusing them of “misleading the American public” regarding illegal immigration in order to further a pro-amnesty agenda.

The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and its affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven, according to Fox News Channel's Martha MacCallum.

The National Council members criticized the ICE leadership and claim they created "misguided and reckless initiatives,” and claim ICE managers “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for policies and programs related to amnesty.”

Besides Morton's and Coven's low marks, the Obama Administration recently appointed a former police chief, who believes in illegal alien sanctuary city policies, to command the immigration enforcement program that entails federal agents working with local police departments on cases involving illegal aliens.

As part of the Homeland Security Department's anti-terrorism mission, the new director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of State and Local Coordination is now Harold Hurtt, an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level such as Arizona's new immigration enforcement law.

"As police chief in two different cities with huge illegal alien populations—Phoenix and Houston—Hurtt enforced don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration measures that prevented officers from inquiring about a suspects’ legal status in the U.S.," according to officials at Judicial Watch, a non-partisan, public-interest group that investigates public corruption.
In his new post, Hurtt will receive a salary $180,000 a year plus benefits to oversee outreach and communication between federal immigration staff and local law enforcement agencies. He is charged with strengthening the collaboration between local police and federal immigration officials in an effort to combat a crisis that has rocked practically every major U.S. city and many small municipalities, according to Judicial Watch officials.

Homeland Security officials are promoting Hurtt as “a respected member of the law enforcement community” who will be an “invaluable asset to ICE’s outreach and coordination efforts.”

However, the reality is quite different, say proponents of tough immigration enforcement. Chief Hurtt is on record opposing immigration enforcement and as police chief protected the most violent of criminals. Hurtt has even testified before Congress that local police should not assist with immigration enforcement, say officials at Judicial Watch.

President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to fight the Arizona law, which he claims is racist and unconstitutional. Officials in sanctuary cities couldn’t agree more and they want illegal aliens in their beloved city to feel safe.

"We can expect Chief Hurtt to continue to 'protect' criminal aliens as part of the Obama Administration's 'national security team" that includes other leftists who side with criminal aliens such as Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other Obama appointees," said former military intelligence officer and NYPD police detective Mike Snopes.

His pro-immigration policies enabled illegal immigrants with extensive criminal histories to murder two police officers and seriously injure another while he was chief in Phoenix and later in Houston. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Hurtt on behalf of the deceased Houston officer’s wife for implementing the sanctuary policies that led to her husband’s murder at the hands of an illegal alien fugitive.

In the 2007 incident, Officer Rodney Johnson was brutally shot by a previously deported illegal immigrant during a traffic stop. The illegal alien, Juan Quintero, had an extensive criminal record and had been deported three years earlier for molesting a child.

The Mexican national had also been in trouble for driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended license and for failing to stop and provide information after an automobile accident. When Johnson arrested him, Quintero shot him four times in the back of the head with a 9 millimeter handgun concealed in the waistband of his pants.

Some illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails, adding to already overcrowded prisons and jails. On April 7, 2007, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.

"[Hurtt's] appointment is simply one more nail in the coffin of America's soverignty," Det. Snopes said.

[mjfell]

I Already Escaped Socialism Once (interview with American immigrant from Czechoslovakia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEH5uUjqRaY

[mjfell]

This CBS writer, Steve Kroft, certainly likes to live on the edge...

A compilation of (factual) articles and anecdotes on George Soros a friend put together. Read it and feel your flesh creep...

Some time ago I [CBS' Steve Kroft] wrote an article questioning who might be the power or
puppet master behind Barack Hussein Obama. It has to be someone because of
his meteoric rise to power, with experience at virtually nothing, with
questionable wisdom, and with a mysterious past that has been carefully
erased and hidden where no one can check it. This puppet master, whoever he
is, apparently paid for Obama's education and his travels to Pakistan for
some mysterious purpose, and promoted him into Illinois, then national
politics.

I once suggested it might be billionaire George Soros. I now believe that to
be the case more than ever.

George Soros might be the most evil man in the world, with intent to destroy
America and every value we have held dear. Obama seems to be in lockstep
with Soros' philosophies and simply a tool in Soros' world-changing
strategies. Both must be stopped.

Read the below article and judge for yourself. It is from
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/george-soros-obamas-puppet

"Who is behind Barack Obama? Who is pulling the strings?"

Here is what (CBS') Mr. (Steve) Kroft's research has turned up......... bit
of a read, but it took 4 months to put it together...

GEORGE SOROS TEA PARTY ENEMY #1

"The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States."
George Soros

"George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and
anti-good." Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the
Democratic Party, and America's moral decline, at the feet of one man?

YES, It is indeed possible.

If George Soros isn't the world's preeminent "malignant messianic
narcissist," he'll do until Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are
reincarnated.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral
values, and a sociopath's lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an
elitist world class philosopher, despises the American Way and just loves to
do social engineering (change cultures).

Soros is the power behind the throne of Obama. I accuse George Soros of
being the PUPPET MASTER that is pulling Obama's strings.

Gyargy Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August
12, 1930, in Hungary. Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of
Esperanto a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global
language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to
Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as
the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.

When Hitler's henchman, Adolf Eichmann, arrived in Hungary to oversee the
murder of that country's Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job
was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on
his rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944 "the best year of his life."

"70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human
beings, were annihilated in that year yet he gives no sign that this put
any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect."

During an interview with "Sixty Minute's" Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about
his "best year:"

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours
who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from
your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.

SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of
people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it..

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: No, only feelings of absolute power.

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having
"carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood,
which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble."

Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of
Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian,
Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until
Popper's death in 1994. Two of Popper's most influential teachings concerned
"the open society," and Fallibilism.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge
could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

The "open society" basically refers to a "test and evaluate" approach to
social engineering. Regarding "open society" Roy Childs writes, "Since the
Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper's
advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and
it has gotten them into a grand mess.

In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and
started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency
speculation.

Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings,
and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to
becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for "The American Thinker" she says,
"Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with
leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke
the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British
citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life
savings cut drastically almost overnight."

In 1994 Soros crowed in "The New Republic" that "the former Soviet Empire is
now called the Soros Empire." The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost
collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of
the House Banking Committee, to be "one of the greatest social robberies in
human history." The "Soros Empire" indeed.

In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At
the time, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros "a
villain, and a moron." Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, "We regard George
Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people."

The website Greek National Pride reports, "[Soros] was part of the full
court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia,
Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role
is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New
World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without
conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality."

France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider
trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.

Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for "illegal
market manipulation." Elizabeth Crum writes that "The Hungarian economy has
been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more
financially stable and westernized. [Soros'] deliberately driving down the
share price of its largest bank put Hungary 's economy into a wicked
tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.

My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and
gluttony have a global reach.

But what about America? Soros told Australia's national newspaper, "The
Australian", " America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets,
was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,"
he said, adding that the time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in
American's consumption habits. He implied that he was the one with the power
to bring this about.

Soros: "World financial crisis was stimulating and in a way, the culmination
of my life's work."

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil, in
order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's
largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after his financial backer George
Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

Tait Trussel writes, "The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and
Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U. S. The American Petroleum Institute
estimates that oil exploration in the U. S. could create 160,000 new,
well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state,
and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and
independence."

A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com
. Their
mission: "This blog is dedicated to all, who have suffered due to the
ruthless financial pursuits of George Soros. Your stories are many and
varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without
conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to
print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying
upon the world's poor, that justice will be served."

Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from
the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years
ago Bill O'Reilly said on "The O'Reilly Factor" that "Soros [is] an
extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized
drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous."

In 1997 Rachel Ehrrenfeld wrote, "Soros uses his philanthropy to change or
more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western
world, and particularly of the American people. His "open society" is not
about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered
liberty, in favor of a PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements."

Perhaps the most important of these "whistle blowers" are David Horowitz and
Richard Poe. Their book "The Shadow Party" outlines in detail how Soros
hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting
moderate Democrats for years.

The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama
Administration.

Discoverthenetworks.org (another good
source) writes, "By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in
Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country
for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government; a fully
formed government-in- exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity
arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he
has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup."

November 2008 edition of the German magazine "Der Spiegel," in which Soros
gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U. S.) should do
after taking office. "I think we need a large stimulus package..." Soros
thought that around 600 billion would be about right.

Soros also said that "I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to
finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U. S. needs a
cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights."

Although Soros doesn't (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the
Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the
Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100
million dollars. According to an article by "The Baltimore Chronicle's"
Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by "a veritable who's who of
former Republican leaders," from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and
ex-President] George Bush, Sr.

In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton, Dick
Cheney's old stomping grounds.

When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros
held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren't bad
enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.

And I mustn't forget to mention Soros' involvement with the MSM (Main Stream
Media), the entertainment industry (e. g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time
Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels
millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influences most of the MSM.
Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro's NEMESIS.

As Matthew Vadum writes, "The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has
been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message
to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too
selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own
lives."

Richard Poe writes, "Soros' private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5
billion, continues undermining America's traditional Western values. His
giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization,
sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass
immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social
engineering."

Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with
his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for
America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In
America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief
descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org
.

Poe continues, "Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open
Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training,
indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries,
placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government,
finance and academia."

Without Soro's money, would the Saul Alinsky's Chicago machine still be
rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious
activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government?
Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? No,
no, no, and no.

America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly
attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously
planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barak Obama is leading the
way.

[Ree]

attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously
planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barak Obama is leading the
way.

Posted by: mjfell | August 05, 2010 at 07:55 PM

Yes that's true, makes you wonder what Soros has in the tubes ready to go next?

He's not finished with us yet. If he didn't want that moratorium on drilling down in the gulf there wouldn't be one...so go figure he stands to profit from it some how.

[mjfell]

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil, in
order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's
largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after his financial backer George
Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

[gringoman]

Posted by: gringoman | August 05, 2010 at 01:31 PM

Gringoman does the Judge in California have a Constitutional Argument?

I agree that the will of the majority should rue the day, but doesn't the state of California have to comply with the U.S. Constitution?

Look at the legal argument - remove the heat, does the Judge have a Constitutional standing?

We are a Republic our form of Government is Democracy. We have majority rule with minority protection.

Where does that leave Gay Americans?

As far as Imus goes he was born 70 years ago, that's a different generation. He likes to play Willie Nelson's song, that Sh1t Ain't Right. He does have Gay friends if you are hetero, does that mean the Gay lifestyle would be attractive to you? Probably not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4CXlIYjyE

Posted by: Ree | August 05, 2010 at 02:04 PM

Ree,

Does the Homosexual AKA Gay activist lawyer in CA have a Constitutional argument for defying the will of Californians (and most of the human race)?

Sure he does. That's why crypto-Marxists go to law school. It just happens to be the kind of dreck argument we've come to expect from liberals. Don't take my word for it. See the lawyer on Laura Ingraham. See former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, (author of The Grand Jihad.)

This Bush-appointed Judge (yes, Monica)jabbers about "protection" and "equal protection" of a "right" yada yada. Which tells you plenty about his mental caliber right there.

Do you know anything in the Founders documents that grants AKA gay "marriage" as a "right"---or even hetero marriage as a right? The so-called "right" is only bilge construed by liberals who are reading what they want into the Constitution. Marriage is not a "right." Maybe the hoi polloi can't grasp that, but somebody who got through law school without affirmative action should be able to get it.

If you, or anybody you know, can point to a Constitutional "right" to same sex marriage, do let me know. I'm open to being even more enlightened than I am already.

As for Imus, this is not about friends. People love animals and do not want them abused. At the same time, they are not advocating "marriage" for them or to them. A joke? Why? Once you break the definition of marriage that's endured from time immemorial, one man, one woman, why should there not be additional forms of "marriage" besides those being advocated by a militant minority of a minority at the moment? Imus is so "open" and "understanding" of this issue, so why should he not have the right to "marry" his horse, and his favorite dog while he's at it? Would Deirdre mind? I'm not saying Imus would want to marry any of his animals. I don't know him that well. What I'm saying is: Should he not have the "right" to do that if it would make him feel happy and fulfilled? Why not? You'd be tolerant, no? You wouldn't discriminate against him for that orientation, would you?

[Dgscol]

When is the discrimination against Polygamy going to end? How long will these people have to live on the edge of civilization, as outlaws?

http://www.cc.utah.edu/~ma16460/html/opinions/polygamy.htm

These people just want the right to live as they chose, to have sexual freedom, free from oppression and dying in flames. And if you ask them, they will tell you that Gays are unnatural and prisons were first created for them.

[gringoman]

Obama August Surprise?

There is a Reuters blog making the rounds that the Obama administration is planning a surprise for the 15 million homeowners who are undergoing severe stress on their mortgages. It is surmised that Fannie and Freddie are going to absorb the mortgage losses by writing new mortgages based on the depreciated value of the homes [...]

[gringoman]

JAMES PETHOKOUKIS: An August Surprise from Obama? “Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth. . . . The political calculation is that the number of grateful Americans would be greater than those offended that they — and their children and their grandchildren — would be paying for someone else’s mortgage woes.”

[Dgscol]

What is the big deal about color and the Tea Party?

Everyone has agreed, have they not, that yellow is the party color? Everyone looks cool in yellow.

[Dgscol]

Now it is my turn to go wild ...

What is the deal with Elaine Chao? She sits at the Heritage Foundation, presumably to assist us in creating jobs here in the US. How does she do this? Well, mainly she tells the Chinese in Taiwan and Shanghai whether or not the climate here is good for Chinese commerce, and in this manner, it helps companies like Walmart who receive Chinese products to plan for hiring. This was her job as Sec of Transportation in the Bush administration (since her father was a Chinese shipping magnate I presume, she actually was a resident Chinese Sec. of Transportaton) , and presumably that is what she is still doing. She tells people here that we have to fight to be competitive, while she sits here like Mata Hari. She tells us the mantra - the government does not create jobs, only the private sector.

Strictly that is a farce, right? Only the government has the overall picture of the economy, and business depends on government forecasts to decide what to do, doesn't it? Furthermore, government policies have everything to do with what direction the economy takes, and how fast it goes. Elaine, just an MBA? Did you take a course in espionage? Her presence and connections, show a divided loyalty to the nation, and in fact a nonsensitivity, of the party to the creation of domestic jobs. No doubt Elaine is there, to make sure our government continues its current policies that build jobs abroad, not here.

[M/M]

My problems with the gay marriage ruling in CA are:

1) Twice people petitioned to ban gay marriage in CA through a ballot initiative. Many consider ballot initiatives to be the purest form of freedom because the people, not the politicians and special interest groups have spoken. It is also my understand that the ballot initiative was found to be constitutional by other courts. Why is it that one court finds a law to be constitutional while another court can knock it down? What does this mean for future ballot initiatives, including liberal ones?

2) How does legalizing gay marriage in a state effect religions that are opposed to gay marriage due to their interpretation of the Bible? I've heard that churches who refuse to marry gay people have been sued or can lose their tax exempt status with the government?

3) By legalizing gay marriage are you opening the door for other alternative lifestyles, like polygamy?

4) Isn't it funny how LIEberals, who one just referred to marriage certificates as "a piece of paper" now value it so much?

[M/M]

Ree, I'm having computer problems but here are so lawsuits over churches being sued for not performing gay marriages. Even if they are not sued, look at how Rick Warren was treated after he said that he believed "marriage was between a man and a woman".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I2SjbXsrGc

[M/M]

Lawsuits against the Church:

http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/

And:

"However, Catholic Charities, the largest private social service provider in the state, could not in good conscience place its orphan children into homosexual households. After a bitter struggle, Boston Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it refused to embrace the state’s new definition of marriage. The result was doubly tragic because both orphan children and religious liberty took the hit for this misguided attempt at equality.

Two more real-world examples illustrate the danger. In New Jersey, the city of Ocean Grove recently yanked a Methodist institution’s real estate tax exemption because it refused to perform civil unions in its outdoor wedding pavilion.

In Iowa, the Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Based on the ruling, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose $102,000 in government support for the YMCA’s community programs. Equal provision of benefits to all couples was not enough — only the YMCA’s explicit adoption of the state’s new definition of family fulfilled the government’s requirements.

This list barely mentions the avalanche of employment discrimination lawsuits religious institutions will face, if, for example, employees at religious institutions publicly enter same-sex unions in violation of the institution’s teachings and employment policies.

Likewise, religious colleges and universities would run afoul of housing discrimination laws if they were to offer housing benefits for husband-and-wife couples but decline to do so for married same-sex partners.

Are we better off as a community if religious charities are forced to close their doors because the state redefines what is and is not a marriage? Are we better off if, for example, the Salvation Army is forced to close because of employment lawsuits, or if Catholic adoption agencies are forced to shutter their offices? What would such a result say about tolerating diversity and respect for religious liberty? "

http://www.examiner.com/a-1324540~Roger_Severino__Legalizing_gay_marriage_will_spark_lawsuits_against_churches.html

[xbjllb]

Bigots gone wild... rofl

Thou shalt not enjoy Hell half as much as making here as close to Hell as possible was for you.

PROMISE. :D