Barack Obama Flip Flops on the Second Amendment and Gun Control … Internet You Tube Fact Checking

What ever happened to politicians taking a stand on an issue and holding to that position? We are not talking about positions that may change due to economic or social changes within our society like whether to drill offshore or not due to the ever rising price of oil. We are talking about positions regarding the Constitution and Amendments, like a position on the right to bear arms.

The folks at Hot Air make a very good point in that Barack Obama has yet to figure out You Tube or the instant fact checking capability of the internet. Fact checking and discovering candidate flip-flopping is no longer just the job of the media but now the duty of the many on the web.

Now, with video on line and millions of fact-checkers scrutinizing every statement, any obviously false statement will get exposed in short order.  Yesterday’s assertion by Barack Obama that he never said the DC gun ban overturned by the Supreme Court was constitutional or that he supported it became the latest in his flip-flops to be exposed by a simple review of the videotape record:

In February 2008 Obama provides an explanation of how the DC gun ban is part of a Constitutional effort at gun control. Fast forward to June 26, 2008 after the SCOTUS ruled in favor of upholding the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and declared the DC ban was unconstitutional. However, once again as the Gateway Pundit points out, “Bang! Bang!… Bambi Gunned Down on YouTube.”

Obama has done a complete 180 on gun bans, attempting to paint himself as a moderate when the paltry record of Obama’s political stands shows just the opposite. (Ed Morrissey, Hot Air)

Doesn’t Barack Obama sound like yet another past Democratic Presidential wannbe, John Kerry, in that he was for it before he was against it.

Obama: I was for the D.C. handgun ban before I was against it

US Supreme Court Should be Ashamed … 5-4 Vote Child Rapists Can’t be Executed

Think Presidential elections do not matter? Who do you think appoints Supreme Court Justices? You best remember this come November! Take a good look how the two Presidential candidates answered the question. Obama has always tapped danced around the death penalty issue like the true leftist that he is. Obama has said that he disagrees with the SCOTUS ruling, yet he is against the death penalty. Meanwhile John McCain stated the following, “As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children.”

What type of SCOTUS justices do you think each candidate would appoint?

Shame on the US Supreme Court … protecting child rapists as if they are people to. How sick is this that rapist’s rights trump innocent children’s rights? Think Presidential elections do not matter? The liberal judges of the Supreme Court could care less about your children’s rights. Conservative judges like Samuel Alito dissented stating, “The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave.”

The United States Supreme Court voted yesterday, 5–4, that child rapists cannot be executed. Let me first say that they should all hang their head in shame at this heinous ruling. The SCOTUS concluded that capital punishment for crimes against individuals can be applied only to murderers. If the gutless SCOTUS judges want to hide behind the “cruel and unusual punishment” montra, maybe they would like to explain to sexually abused and exploited children everywhere that child rape is not “cruel and unusual” in its own right as a crime. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing “evolving standards of decency” in the United States.

Such standards, the justice wrote, forbid capital punishment for any crime against an individual other than murder.

“We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other,” wrote Kennedy, who is not related to the convicted rapist.

The case in question before the SCOTUS was in regards to 43 year old Patrick Kennedy who was appealing his case where he raped his 8 year old step daughter in her bed.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, would have been the first convicted rapist in the United States since 1964 to be executed in a case in which the victim was not killed.

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused severe emotional trauma, internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, Louisiana prosecutors said.

The liberal judges of the SCOTUS could obviously care less about children and child rape than they do about criminals.

In the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged “the victim’s fright, the sense of betrayal, and the nature of her injuries caused more prolonged physical and mental suffering than, say, a sudden killing by an unseen assassin.”

But the justice — supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — wrote that when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment prohibits, “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” must be taken into account.

Comedian George Carlin Dies at Age 71 of Heart Failure … The True Stuff that Comedians are Made of

George Carlin, one of the funniest, edgiest and most provocative comedians ever, has passed away at the age of 71 due to heart failure. Personally, I did not agree with his politics or any of his lack of beliefs; however, George Carlin was just down right funny. To have ever seen him perform live was a sight to behold. His mere facial expressions during his comedy routines were beyond side splitting laughter.

Thank you for the brilliant comedy … Rest in Peace.

Carlin, who had a history of heart and drug-dependency problems, died at Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica about 6 p.m. PDT (9 p.m. EDT/0100 GMT) after being admitted earlier in the afternoon for chest pains, spokesman Jeff Abraham told Reuters.

Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Although Carlin was best known as the anti-Establishment icon in the 1970’s and the comedy routine “Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television,” which managed to make it all the way to the Supreme Court. George Carlin had so many other brilliant routines like “Stuff”.  Who can forget his routine on Baseball and Football

“Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television.” A regulatory battle over a radio broadcast of the routine ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the 1978 case, Federal Communications Commission vs. Pacifica Foundation, the top U.S. court ruled that the words cited in Carlin’s routine were indecent, and that the government’s broadcast regulator could ban them from being aired at times when children might be listening.

US comedian George Carlin dies

The star was admitted to a hospital in Los Angeles on Sunday with chest pains and died later that day.

Jack Burns, Carlin’s comedy partner in the early 1960s, told the Associated Press agency: “He was a genius and I will miss him dearly.”

Carlin performed as recently as last weekend in Las Vegas.

Cult US comedian George Carlin dies at 71

How influential and edgy was Carlin back in the day? George Carlin hosted the first ever broadcast of the long-running comedy show Saturday Night Live. Let alone a comedy skit making it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Scared Monkeys Radio - Dana Pretzer Talks with Stanley Livingston, Brook Hart, Ronald MacKinnon and Ladonna Meredith

Dana Pretzer and Scared Monkeys Radio

LISTEN TO PODCAST AT SCAREDMONKEYSRADIO.COM

• Stanley Livingston, former child star (who played “Chip” on My Three Sons) discusses the Actors Journey Project
• Brook Hart, attorney for Dog the Bounty Hunter
• Ronald MacKinnon. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted his ex-wife permission to relocate to Okinawa, Japan. MacKinnon fears a legal abduction.

SCOTUS Backs Ban on Partial Birth Abortion, “Promote Respect for life, Including the life of the Unborn.”

Well its about time. The US Supreme Court in a 5–4 ruling upheld the nationwide ban on partial birth abortion. Even if you are pro-abortion, one would have to concede that the sick act of “partial birth” abortion goes beyond the pale of common decency. Its hardly an issue of choice.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long- awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. (Breitbart)

The SCOTUS decided to uphold “the respect for life”, what a novel concept. An abortion procedure? Partial birth abortion is not a procedure, it is barbarism.

The Supreme Court broke new ground yesterday in upholding federal restrictions on abortion, with President Bush’s two appointees joining a court majority that said Congress was exercising its license to “promote respect for life, including the life of the unborn.”

It was also the first time since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision of January 1973 that justices approved an abortion restriction that did not contain an exception for the health of the woman. It does, however, provide an exception to save the woman’s life. (Washington Post)

Others posting:

• Blue Crab Boulevard, “SCOTUS Upholds “Partial Birth” Abortion Ban”

This is a barbarous procedure. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, this is an abomination that we, as a society, should not allow. (I am frankly shocked that any doctors in this country agree to perform what is nothing more than the killing of infants. Not embryos, infants.)

• Right Wing News, A Victory For Life In The Supreme Court
• Captain’s Quarters, Breaking: Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
• SCOTUS blog, Court upholds federal abortion ban

And some reaction typical over-reaction from the left. Sorry folks, partial birth abortion goes beyond all levels of human decency and is one of the most barbaric and hideous acts ever. All in the name of choice, bull!

Daily Kos, SCOTUS Upholds Ban On Abortion Method

Chip, chip, chipping away at Casey’s “undue burden” test until a woman’s right to control her reproductive decisions fundamentally disappears.

Jacque Hollander appeals Rape law suit vs. James Brown, the God Father of Soul …

Jacque Hollander, who claims that in 1988 James Brown raped her at gunpoint is asking the Supreme Court to hear her sexual harassment lawsuit. A lower court had earlier ruled this year that the statute had run out and she had waited too long to file. The statute of limitations on a case such as Hollander’s is just two years.

But the lower court  judge didn’t buy Rosen’s arguments, stating in June 2005 that  the clock started ticking  when the  the alleged  assault took place. The case was also rejected in August by a federal appeals court, meaning the Supreme Court  is her final option. (E Online)

According to sources close to the case Jacque Hollander has passed a lie detector test. Also, according to our sources Hollender has forensic evidence from the time of the rape. DNA sophistication in 2006 is quite a bit more advances than 1988.

Jacque Hollander argues that the state’s two-year statute of limitations in such cases does not provide equal protection to women.

In her lawsuit, Hollander said Brown raped her at gunpoint in 1988 while she was working as his publicist. She seeks $106 million in damages. (Mercury News)

According to court papers filed in 2005,  Hollander states the attack took place while the  two were driving to a South Carolina car dealerships.

Brown allegedly drove to a secluded area, threatened Hollander with a shotgun and, per the suit, “raped, beat and mentally tortured her over the course of several hours.” Hollander also claims the Grammy-winning Rock and Roll Hall of Famer threatened to kill her if she reported the incident.

Jacque Hollander’s attorney, Donald Rosen, had argued that because  Hollander did not  learn of the source for the previous diagnosed  disease until 2003, and filed her initial complaint in 2005; the lawsuit was well within the  time frame  of the statute.

In 2000, 12 years after the alleged rape, Hollander says she was diagnosed with a thyroid condition, the autoimmune disorder Graves’ disease. Three years later, she says she learned the condition developed as a result of the intense stress of the assault, a common trigger for the disorder. (E Online)

The appeal will be based on the fact that  the time limit is unfair toward victims, particularly women who need equal protection of the law.

Whether the State of Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations that includes sexual assault as a personal injury subject to the same limitations as other personal injuries, fails to provide due process of law, and fails to provide equal protection to women, and so violates the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USCS Â § 13981.

Attorney Donald Rosen also references the Violence Against Women Act as well.

The application of the statute of limitations in a manner which, under the factual circumstances, effectively denies a person (whether male or female) of due process in pursuing a remedy constitutes state action in violation of due process. Moreover, Congress has recognized the need for special protection against gender-based violence and so, in 1994, enacted the Violence Against Women Act, 42 USCS 13981.

Jacque Hollander’s attorney is also arguing that the 2 year statute should be tolled due to the death threats made by James Brown.

Petitioner also argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled for public policy and estoppel reasons due to the death threats made by Respondent James Brown, and reasonably believed by Petitioner, that restrained Petitioner from filing the lawsuit within the statutory period.

Debra Opri, James Brown attorney calls Hollander’s request for the Supreme Court to hear the case, “A pipe dream.”

AP News

James Brown, Smoking Gun: James Brown has pleaded no contest to a domestic violence charge (pictures available)

UPDATE: According to reports Larry Garrison is the spokesperson for Jacque Hollander

Supreme Court Stupidity; Salim Ahmed Hamdan Decision … SCOTUS 5-3 that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. military law & the Geneva conventions.

Today the Supreme Court just made this country a little less safe. The Supreme Court ruled 5–3 that President George W. Bush over-stepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for GITMO detainees and that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. military law and the Geneva conventions.

The court declared 5-3 that the trials for 10 foreign terror suspects violate U.S. military law and the Geneva conventions.

The ruling raises major questions about the legal status of the approximately 450 men still being held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba and exactly how, when and where the administration might pursue the charges against them.

The judicial stupidity astounds me. Treat them like criminals? What next, bail? Why don’t we just let them out on remand with the promise to show up to court. Why not, we do it for illegal aliens that are caught.  Hell, lets afford them all the rights of American citizens, the very same people that they are trying to kill.

Only in America can a case be brought to a court by Osama bin Laden’s former driver and be won. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself this evening. But with such recent rulings like seizing American citizens private property with Eminent Domain, is it any wonder.

“It is profoundly disturbing that the court would take away from the commander in chief the sole discretion of determining what is militarily necessary,” he said, describing the ruling as “a historical disgrace on the court.” (Yahoo News)

President George W. Bush’s news conference video

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, said the Bush administration lacked the authority to take the “extraordinary measure” of scheduling special military trials for inmates, in which defendants have fewer legal protections than in civilian U.S. courts.

The decision blocked a trial for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring to commit terrorism against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

(Camp Delta 4 military-run prison, at the Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base, Cuba, Reuters)

Think about what these left leaning robe wearing fools just did. John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have effectively put terrorist in the same category as US citizens.

“We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate” the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Uniform code of military justice? Geneva conventions? WTF. Who the hell are you people kidding? Maybe you five black rode wearing idiots would like to tell the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston, TX and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker of Madras, OR who were just laid to rest who were savagely and inhumanely tortured by these very same sub-humans you wish to provide refuge with the Geneva conventions. Where is the outrage over these two American soldiers violation of their Geneva Conventions rights?

Two American soldiers have been tortured to death, their bodies mutilated.Al-Qaeda in Iraq has bragged on the Internet that its new leader, apparently eager to boost his image as a butcher, personally “slaughtered” Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Texas, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Oregon. The Arab term “nahr,” which applies to the ritual slitting of a sheep’s throat, was used.

The lack of common sense and putting the United States ability to fight terrorism first and foremost is disgusting. However, somehow its OK when American soldiers are tortured. But these sub-humans who make torture a way of life and a sport are supposed to be protected by the very laws they care nothing about.

Terrorist treated as criminals. I want you all to think about Nick Berg, a free-lance telecommunications contractor from West Chester, PA  who was savagely be-headed. We will not show or link to the video; however, it is easily enough accessible on line. We would treat these savages in accordance with the Geneva convention and as criminals? What planet do these justices live on?

In a grainy execution video eerily similar to one in 2002 that showed al-Qaeda operatives executing a Wall Street Journal reporter in Pakistan, Berg was shown sitting in an orange jumpsuit in front of five armed, hooded men.

Berg’s body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

One really has to wonder what the hell these people are thinking and the damage they just caused. The hell with the military tribunals, these fools just gave terrorist thug assassins protection rights under the Geneva Convention. The SCOTUS blog states it perfectly:

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.

The only ones that had a clue that we are in a war against terrorist were the Supreme  court’s conservatives — Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who was appointed by Bush who dissented.

The court’s willingness, Thomas wrote in the dissent, “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.”

As bad as a ruling that this is by the Supreme Court, the ACLU, libs and terrorist rights sympathizers best not pop the champaign so soon. As others have referenced, the SCOTUS just gave Republicans and George Bush a huge political gift. I believe the Counterterrorism blog is right on the mark.

The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. The Administration and its allies will release plenty of information on the terrorist acts committed by the detainees for which they were detained.

They will also release information about those terrorist acts committed by Gitmo prisoners after they were released. They will challenge the “judicial interference with national security” and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people.

If anyone wants to know why Democrats will not win the White House or the House or the Senate, one only needs to look at the statements of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Frankly it should scare the hell out of all of you, no matter what your political affiliation is.

WASHINGTON, June 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

“The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”

Nancy Pelosi, its these terrorist’s rights you are defending.

WIZBANG is dead on … The Democrats now have a new slogan for the Mid-term elections in 2006 and the Presidential elections in 2008 … “Vote for the Democrats. They’re the party for terrorists’ rights.”

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of you that relish in todays court decision, I realize you all have short term memory … but do you remember this … September 11, 2001.

So we would treat these people responsible for such acts as common criminals? See you in the polls in 2006 & 2008.

US Supreme Court Upholds Campus Military Recruiting

What exactly did anyone think that would happen when a college or university accepts federal money? Hardly a difficult decision when colleges and universities accept approximately $35 billion a year.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

“A military recruiter’s mere presence on campus does not violate a law school’s right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter’s message”.
(AP)

Washington Post: Court Upholds Campus Military Recruiting

Others covering story:
SCOTUS, Court upholds “Solomon Amendment”
Ace of Spades, A Victory for the U.S. Military

Anna Nicole Smith Goes To Washington (U.S. Supreme Court)

In what can only be deemed as a sign of the Apocalypse, Anna Nicole Smith, takes her traveling road show to Washington, DC and the US Supreme Court. The battle; who is more greedy and will win the lottery and get J. Howard Marshall II’s fortune. On one side we have former Playboy Playmate of the Year, Anna Nicole Smith. On the other side we have the 67 year old son E. Pierce Marshall.

Anna Nicole Smith went to work in a Houston strip club and wound up as the trophy wife of an aging multimillionaire, setting up an 11-year-long legal war over his estate that now has traveled all the way to the highest court in the land.

The lottery that we speak of is the estate of E. Pierce Marshall that was estimated at as much as $1.6 billion in 2000. Just a reminder to how this fairy tale romance began, Smith and Marshall married in 1994 in Houston. Anna Nicole, the bride was 26; the groom was 89. J. Howard Marshall II died just 14 months later. Who could have see that coming?

After all the bickering and arguments and court appearances over the past 11 years, it has finally made its way to the US Supreme Court. Anna Nicole Smith in the SCOTUS. Who would ever have placed that bet in Vegas in 1991 when Anna was working at Rick’s Cabaret, an upscale strip club?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday focused solely on the narrow question of whether federal courts can decide cases involving state probate proceedings. The Bush administration has filed briefs favoring federal court jurisdiction.

(Seattle PI)

This should be interesting.

Roberts and Alito , meet Anna Nicole Smith (Washington Post)

Justices have a date with former Playmate (Houston Chronicle)

“If you don’t know who I am by now … Let’s see, I was born near Houston, Texas,” begins the official biography in the “All About Me” section of Anna Nicole Smith’s official Web site.

Anna Nicole legal drama moves to Supreme Court (USA Today)

Samuel Alito Sworn In as Nation’s 110th Supreme Court Justice

Following the 58-42 roll call by which the Senate voted to confirm Judge Samuel Alito as the 110th justice on the Supreme Court. Following mostly party lines only RINO, Chafee, RI voted against while four Democrats crossed party lines and voted in favor of Alito, Byrd, WV; Conrad, ND; Johnson, SD and Nelson, NB.

Later Samuel Alito Sworn in as nation’s 110th Supreme Court Justice.

“Sam Alito is a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench. He is a man of deep character and integrity, and he will make all Americans proud as a justice on our highest court,” President Bush said in a statement after the confirmation vote.

(AP) Alito Sworn in As Associate Justice

(Washington Post) Alito Is Sworn In On High Court

Samuel A. Alito Jr. was sworn in as the nation’s 110th Supreme Court justice yesterday, marking a major victory for conservatives in their decades-old drive to move the court rightward, and alarming liberals who fear that long-standing rights might be in jeopardy.