Texas, Ignore The Court And Do What You Want

Texas has had a strict voter ID requirement since 2011 and the Obama administration challenged it in court. Today the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates the Voting Rights Act and instructed a lower court to make changes to fix the discriminatory effect of the law with as little impact on this year’s election as possible.

The Constitution describes voting in several amendments and they state Congress can write laws to carry out the things described in those amendments. Those amendments talk about when a right to vote can be denied or abridged. This is not the case with regard to ID laws. No one is denying or abridging the right to vote. A person must simply provide ID to do so.

As liberal courts are eager to state with regard to the Second Amendment, reasonable restrictions can be applied to it and to all rights. That is why courts have allowed restrictions to be applied to the Second Amendment (most of which are actually unconstitutional). So if reasonable restrictions can be applied (most people would not argue that a background check for a non-private firearm sale is unreasonable) then it is not out of the question to require ID to vote. It is a REASONABLE restriction.

Evidently, the law is discriminatory because it has a short list of IDs that are acceptable. The list looks about the same as the list required to prove citizenship when applying for a job. Does this mean the requirement to show ID (and prove citizenship) when applying for a job is discriminatory?

There is nothing discriminatory about asking for ID before allowing someone to vote, period. It matters not what any court or President says about it, asking for an ID is not discriminatory at all.

The unions Obama loves so much require IDs before anyone can vote in union elections. One must show an ID to get on a plane and that is not deemed discriminatory.

Neither is showing ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, registering kids for school or sports programs and it is definitely not deemed discriminatory to show ID to get into a government building.

None of these acts requiring ID would be deemed discriminatory based on the types of ID deemed acceptable…

Texas should probably tell the court thanks but we will do things our way. This is our law and this is what we are going to do. If you want to vote here then you need to follow the law, period.

In other words, Texas should tell them to stick it because ID laws are reasonable and the list of acceptable IDs is not prohibitive.

As an aside, please don’t blast me with the idea that poor people can’t get an ID (even from the short list). Practically everyone needs an ID for some aspect of life and the poor seem to be able to get an ID to get welfare…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


The Apple Does Not Fall Far

Barack Obama is a big government big brother liberal progressive left wing fanatic who believes in government control over the lives of private citizens. He was raised by communists, studied and uses Rules for Radicals, and he violates the Constitution nearly every day. In short, he is un-American and the kind of person the Constitution was designed to stop.

There is a case before the court right now dealing with an Apple iPhone that was used by a few terrorists who shot up San Bernardino. It seems the feds are unable to crack the encryption on the phone, a claim I find preposterous, so the FBI wants Apple to write the code to crack the phone. The problem is, the code would affect all iPhones and make it easier for the government to demand a phone be accessed in the future.

Maybe Obama should ask the Chinese or the Russians to get the data from the phone. These countries seem to be able to hack into our government on a regular basis. Better yet, maybe the government should ask Apple to teach it electronic security…

I doubt the issue at hand is the phone itself. I am sure the highly paid people at the FBI (or perhaps the NSA) could get into the phone. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that the same government hacking into systems all over the world can’t get into a phone? No, this is about setting precedence that would force companies to build backdoors into devices that government could use when it wanted to obtain data.

Obama recently made his views known when he discussed the issue. He believes that PRIVATE companies should not be able to build items government cannot access. That is the basic idea behind what Obama said. Now he laced it with sugar coating by discussing child pornography and such things because, well no one could oppose such common sense things.

Then he got to the real reason. You see, government needs to access your electronic items so it can be certain you are paying your taxes. Obama thinks that without the ability to access phones people will be walking around with Swiss bank accounts right on their devices.

As if most people have the ability to get one. But the rich certainly have them (I would not be surprised to find out many politicians had them) though I suspect they would not be foolish enough to keep that info on their phones.

While Obama thinks no citizen should have absolute privacy he carries an electronic device paid for by the taxpayers that has all kinds of encryption on it to keep it from being hacked. And while Obama thinks government should have the ability to access your information he certainly supports YOU going to jail for accessing anything held on the government’s electronic media.

They work for us but they act like they own us. Their information is very important to them so much so that Hillary Clinton set up a home brew server to route all her communications through other than government channels.

Instead of worrying about some citizen keeping a Swiss bank account on a cell phone perhaps Obama should concern himself with government officials who are hiding their misdeeds from the public.

People have a right to privacy and that right should not be infringed upon because the government can’t access data it wants. But if the court agrees with government and allows this violation of our rights perhaps we should be afforded the opportunity to redact things before they get to see them.

You know, just like they do when citizens request information…

The apple does not fall far from the tree and in the case of Obama it is a rotten apple that fell from the tree of communism.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Another Judge Without A Clue

Imagine if a judge declared that you were only allowed to buy one book a month and that 12 books a year is more than enough. Also imagine that in addition to the limit on the number of books the judge allowed to stand a rule that some books were banned and in order to buy your books you had to go through an extensive and expensive background check and obtain a license to buy the books. Now imagine that once you satisfied these demands you had to (re)register your books every three years.

Sounds like an infringement on your right to participate in free speech. The government is not allowed to ban books or require you to register to buy them. The First Amendment allows people to sell even the vilest pornography and allows you to buy them (reasonable age restrictions aside).

A federal judge upheld a D.C. law requiring guns to be registered every three years, the requirement for fingerprints and photographs of the purchasers/owners and the limit of one handgun purchase per month.

Judge James Boasberg dismissed the challenge to these Draconian (and unconstitutional) laws. It seems that this judge feels it is his duty to decide what protects society and then rule based on his opinion. I am no legal scholar but it seems to me that a judge is required to rule based on the Constitutionality of the issue in question.

People in D.C live in one of the strictest places with regard to gun laws and, like their restrictive allies in places like Chicago, suffer the highest rates of crimes committed with guns. D.C. is not safer because of these gun laws and the way this judge handled the case shows not only he is a disgrace to the bench but he also has no concept of reality.

I am pretty sure how he would have ruled had the case been the scenario I described above and I am absolutely certain how he would have ruled if this case were about restrictions on abortions instead of guns.

The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and the history regarding the inclusion of that Amendment leaves no doubt what the Founders wanted when they included it.

Unfortunately, we now live in a society where people like this judge dishonor our Founders by violating their oath in the name of feel good (though ineffective) laws that infringe on our very rights.

My advice to people in D.C is to move outside the city limits (but not to Maryland, another Socialist nightmare) to escape the tyranny.

Escape the tax burden and unchain the shackles of tyranny and be free.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Zimmerman Not Guilty But Ordeal Not Over

George Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY of murder and manslaughter by a jury of his peers. The evidence was presented and the entirety of it corroborates the account that Zimmerman gave from the moment he made contact with police. His account has not changed and the evidence shows his account was accurate.

There is a lot of angst over the not guilty verdict and various groups have been protesting with scattered acts of violence. The threats are there as the New Black Panthers have declared war. A number of users of social media have advocated violence but whether or not large scale violence occurs remains to be seen.

I think it is moronic to commit acts of violence against people who had nothing to do with the incident to protest what is seen as an act of violence against Trayvon Martin.

Let me make it clear, from what I saw George Zimmerman acted in self defense. If Martin felt threatened he could have continued on his way to his father’s house. Instead, he circled back and attacked Zimmerman and ended up getting shot. Zimmerman exercised what I consider remarkable restraint in that he was attacked and aten while screaming for help and only drew his firearm after Martin went for it and told Zimmerman he was going to die. Then, and only then, did Zimmerman draw and use the firearm.

It matters not how badly he was beaten. He was being beaten and it was obvious that the beating would not stop. Martin threatened his life and went for the gun. Zimmerman was completely justified in his use of force.

None of the other things matter. The only thing pertinent is that Martin attacked him, threatened to kill him and he defended himself.

This does not take away the sadness of a lost life. Trayvon Martin was a misguided young man who was involved in drugs, crime and violence but he was a living being whose life was cut short by a terrible decision on his part. It is sad that he was killed and my thoughts and prayers go with his family who must bear the burden of his death for the rest of their lives. My prayers also go with the Zimmerman family as their lives have been forever changed as well.

Zimmerman will be investigated by the Department of Justice for a race crime or a hate crime. While I have no doubt the government could convict a turtle if it tried I think the journey will be long and the outcome hard to achieve.

The family might pursue a civil case for wrongful death.

In either case the information about Martin, information that was suppressed in the Zimmerman trial, will likely come to light. Martin’s drug use, his criminal behavior, the possession of stolen property, the contents of his phone, his school records and all other aspects that the Florida court would not allow will likely be used to defend Zimmerman in any other case (Zimmerman’s attorneys should make this stuff public now before any other court suppresses it).

Martin was no choir boy. He was a troubled young man who liked to indulge in purple drank (two of the ingredients for it were in his possession when he was shot), marijuana and booze. He was prone to fighting and demonstrated this on a number of occasions.

As an aside, there was testimony from the prosecution’s star witness that Martin told her it was halftime of the NBA All Star game and he was going to get snacks (ingredients?). Martin was shot just before 7:17 pm. The NBA All Star game started at 7:30 pm. How was it halftime of a game that had not started?

Even if no other cases against Zimmerman are undertaken he will forever live looking over his shoulder. There is a bounty on his head and someone will likely take the chance to murder him. No matter where he goes he will be hunted by those who have no respect for the justice system in this country.

He will be hounded by the race baiters who will stir up trouble in order to justify their existence.

If Martin was Hispanic and Zimmerman black there would have been no national uproar. Tens of thousands of black children are murdered by other blacks and there is no uproar. There is no call for riots (which is true when blacks murder whites).

I think the jury reached the correct verdict. I am happy they did not bow to pressure or worry about civil unrest if they acquitted (though they were sequestered and might not have grasped the scope). I am happy they viewed the evidence and did not allow emotion to outweigh fact.

Trayvon Martin took a decision to attack George Zimmerman when a number of other options were open to him. He chose a person who had a gun (unknown to him when he attacked) and who eventually used it to protect himself.

As unfortunate as it is the Martin family will have to come to terms with the reality that Trayvon took a course of action that resulted in his death.

The right of self defense should never be denied. The left will tell you that you do not need a firearm and that you should call the police if there is a problem.

Zimmerman was on the phone with police and they were on the way. They arrived after the incident took place.

Just like they did in Newtown.

When seconds count the police are minutes away. If Zimmerman had waited he might be the one dead and Martin would be on trial.

And you can bet the reaction of the media and the race baiting community would be a lot different.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


My Evolving Opinion On Roberts

Time has passed since the SCOTUS ruling this morning and I have had a chance to review the opinion of the Court. I still contend that John Roberts participated in judicial activism by calling the penalty a tax when the law, Congress and Barack Obama himself said it was not a tax. It is not up to members of any court to rewrite what a legislative body has written. I am not so sure my earlier claim that Roberts betrayed America is accurate. It feels like a betrayal because he is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not write law but how it feels and what it is are two different things.

But, and this is a big but, he did rule that the Commerce Clause could NOT be used to enact Obamacare (now Obamatax). This is an important thing because it is now settled law that the government cannot compel people to buy things with a Commerce Clause argument.

All along the penalty was seen as a tax by Republicans. Democrats knew it was a tax but could not call it a tax because that would have spelled doom. Obama promised not to tax the middle class and he is on record as saying that people should not get health care by taxing the middle class. So, they had to call it a penalty.

John Roberts, as Chief Justice, was in a precarious position. Liberals were bemoaning the defeat of Obamacare and were all ready with their attacks on the conservative part of the Court. You will notice they never call the four solidly Democrat votes activist, only the conservative votes. in any event, he needed to do something that would uphold conservative principles, reign in government but also give the appearance that the Court is not activist.

Roberts achieved this by declaring that the mandate could not be enacted under the Commerce Clause. That was simple enough and it is sufficient to take the teeth out of future attempts to use Commerce for government expansion.

Roberts, once he asserted that Commerce could not be used to force the mandate acknowledged that Congress had the authority to tax people. He therefore called the penalty a tax which is what it was all along and is what Republicans said from the start.

While I think this amounts to judicial activism I think it was activism that appeared to give the left what it wanted and at the same time smacked them in the head.

Roberts declared that the penalty is a tax. This ruling now means that Obama has enacted the largest tax increase in the history of the world and he did so primarily on the middle class. Roberts gave Obama the outcome he wanted and at the same time demonstrated that Obama is a liar because making this a tax negates the vehement protest Obama made that it was NOT a tax. It also negates his statements that he did not believe everyone should get health care by levying a tax on the middle class.

The ruling also takes away the perception that the Court is political. If Roberts accomplished this while putting the screws to Obama then he is smarter than I originally believed.

He also energized the majority of people in this nation who do not want Obamacare and he gave Mitt Romney a huge gift at the same time. Obama cannot campaign on an activist Court striking down Obamacare but Romney can campaign on Obama being a tax and spend liberal who has given us the biggest tax increase in history. It would appear as if the ruling had a good effect on Romney as his campaign claims to have received about a million dollars in donations just three or four hours post ruling.

I still believe Roberts engaged in judicial activism but I am not as convinced he betrayed the Country. My initial reaction was based on the reports that the mandate was upheld. My belief was that the Commerce Clause argument was allowed to stand and that we could all be forced to buy things under this scheme.

Since this is not how it played out my assessment was hasty and incorrect. I offer an apology to Roberts for my assertion that he betrayed the country.

Like I said, he engaged in judicial activism (which the left is fine with because it went their way) and I am never in favor of that. I believe all branches of government should stay in their own lanes and things will work better.

Time will tell how this plays out and I am interested in seeing how the polls taken after the ruling trend. I think that while liberals celebrate the “victory” they achieved today they are worried because they are aware of what the ruling means for November.

To be sure, Obama (an alleged Constitutional Law Professor) had his mandate ruled unconstitutional. The law was only upheld when the Court changed his penalty to a tax and removed Commerce from the equation. So Obama, in winning, got it wrong. This is not something one would expect from someone who claims to know the Constitution.

I think this ruling might end up being a genius move and might end up costing Democrats. Many lost their seats in 2010 because of Obamacare. That was the only issue on the table and they lost.

Now, millions of seniors and many others who regularly vote as well as those who are opposed to the law and will certainly vote, are energized and will get out to defeat Obama.

The SCOTUS issued its ruling today.

We issue ours in November.

I am praying that we take a lot of seats in the Senate, gain more seats in the House and send Obama back to the street corner where he belongs.

UPDATE: One last note. I read something that is intriguing. Since the Court has ruled this is a tax the Senate only needs 51 votes to overturn it. If Romney wins the presidency and we maintain the House we would only need 51 Senate seats to overturn Obamacare. It could not be blocked by needing 60 votes because it is a tax. I think Roberts might have done us a favor but the rest is up to us. We need to win big.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog