America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

ACLU Pushes High Court to Destroy Cross Memorial

by Ken Klukowski at

The Supreme Court joined in a fight between the ACLU and the federal government over a World War I memorial in the shape of a cross. While neither legal team hit the ball over the fence, the majority seems inclined to save this cross in what will be the first religious liberty case of the new Court.

On Oct. 7, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Salazar v. Buono. This case is a decade-long fight over the so-called Mojave cross, pitting Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan against the ACLU’s Peter Eliasberg. (This doesn’t mean Barack Obama necessarily wants to protect this cross. His Justice Department has the duty of protecting every federal law, regardless of what he and his staff think of those laws.)

In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) erected a cross on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert as a memorial to all those who served in World War I, along with a plaque dedicating it to those servicemen.

This cross in the middle of the desert also happens to be in the middle of a national park. Congress created the Mojave National Preserve in 1994, the land of which includes the cross on Sunrise Rock.

Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decided that the war memorial constituted a grave threat to the republic. So they backed a former National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, to bring a lawsuit to have the cross removed.


October 8, 2009 Posted by | Supreme Court | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

So Much for Wise Latinas

by Ann Coulter on

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To recap the famous Ricci case, in 2003, the city of New Haven threw out the results of a firefighters’ test — which had been expressly designed to be race-neutral — because only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to receive immediate promotions, whereas blacks who took the test did well enough only to be eligible for promotions down the line.

Inasmuch as the high-scoring white and Hispanic firemen were denied promotions solely because of their race, they sued the city for race discrimination.

Obama’s Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion — the judicial equivalent of “talk to the hand.” She upheld the city’s race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a “disparate impact” on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.


July 3, 2009 Posted by | Supreme Court | , , , , | Leave a comment

On Race, the Slog Goes On

by George Will on

WASHINGTON — Although New Haven’s firefighters deservedly won in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won narrowly — 5-4. The egregious behavior by that city’s government, in a context of racial rabble-rousing, did not seem legally suspect to even one of the court’s four liberals, whose harmony seemed to reflect result-oriented rather than law-driven reasoning.

The undisputed facts are that in 2003 the city gave promotion exams to 118 firemen, 27 of them black. The tests were prepared by a firm specializing in employment exams and were validated, as federal law requires, by independent experts. When none of the African-Americans did well enough to qualify for the available promotions, a black minister allied with the seven-term mayor warned of a dire “political ramification” if the city promoted from the list of persons (including one Hispanic) that the exams identified as qualified. The city decided that no one would be promoted, calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.


June 30, 2009 Posted by | Supreme Court | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s War on Guns, New Battlefield = SCOTUS

from the Fox Forum

Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick

By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.


According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.


Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.

But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.


May 31, 2009 Posted by | Bill of Rights | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Obama’s Citizenship Status

shredconstitution3So much for the constitution!

Obama has steadfastly refused to offer proof of his citizenship to show he meets the few constitutional requirements to be President and now the Supreme Court has refused to do its constitutional duty.

Will it be Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2012 for the GOP? Why not? It’s now apparent that none of the 3 branches of government are willing to abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution and demand a candidate actually meets the qualifications.

It seems a simple thing to produce the evidence. Most Americans have had to show proof of citizenship often enough. The President-elect’s refusal to do so only compounds the suspicion that something is amiss.

Congratulations President-elect Obama! Your first usurpation of the Constitution succeeded.

Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama’s citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg’s lawsuit.

December 8, 2008 Posted by | Obama | , , , | 1 Comment

Obama’s Double-Edged Sword–The Internet

The internet made Obama, most agree on that. His strategic use of the internet for fundraising allowed him to gather more than $700 million in campaign contributions. Compare that to John McCain’s acceptance of public campaign financing which netted him only $84 million. The mainstream media lauded praise on Obama for his foresight and planning which allowed him to buy his November victory.

That same mainstream media has pretty much ignored the Constitutional Crisis that’s threatening to upset the coronation of their dog in the fight for the presidency–the Obama birth certificate issue. Only now, with the Supreme Court considering hearing the case, they’re finally taking notice and starting to report on it. Granted, the reporting is slanted to the left–referring to the issue as a scheme of conspiracy theorists and crackpots. But now guess what they’re blaming for the pain in Obama’s side that just won’t go away…the internet.

Here’s an article in today’s Chicago Tribune that says just that…

Internet drives Barack Obama birth-certificate battle
Web allows opinions to “live forever,” expert says
By Tim Jones Tribune correspondent
December 8, 2008

This is a story that won’t go away.

Five weeks after the State of Hawaii vouched for the authenticity of President-elect Barack Obama‘s birth certificate, the controversy over allegations that Obama is not eligible to take office next month has reached the Supreme Court, which is expected to announce Monday whether it will consider the matter.

The fight is unusual because it thrives outside the so-called mainstream media, far beyond the oak-paneled offices of $700-an-hour lawyers and a world away from the 535 individuals whose surnames are preceded by Representative or Senator.

This is a different army at work, in an environment increasingly influenced by the Internet.

“It’s only being mentioned by a relative few, by the real die-hard, anti-Obama crowd,” said Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of Talkers magazine, the trade bible of the talk-radio industry. “On mainstream talk radio, it’s not a big deal right now. I think it’s run its course.”

“But,” Harrison added, “we live in a time that, because of the Internet, all points of view can live forever.”

Just as there is a split on the legitimacy of the legal claims, there is also a split within the media on the merits of the story. Is it the last gasp of opposition from opponents of Obama who have a found community of like-minded believers on the Internet, or is there a legal question to be resolved? The court will answer the latter question this week.

The campaign challenging the legitimacy of Obama’s 1961 birth certificate or the legality of his taking office is chronicled by WorldNetDaily, a popular, politically right-leaning site that was the 26th most-visited news and media Web site during November, according to Hitwise, which monitors Net traffic.

“If this [Obama taking office] happens, the question of eligibility for the highest office in the land will no longer even be a matter for concern,” wrote Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WorldNetDaily.

“Precedent will have been established. Arnold Schwarzenegger will suddenly be eligible to run for the office in 2012,” Farah wrote, referring to the Austrian-born California governor and film star.

An Obama spokesman declined to comment for this story.

The lawyers who, in at least six states including New Jersey and Connecticut, have argued Obama is not a natural-born citizen and cannot be president include one who supported Hillary Clinton‘s presidential bid, one who has thundered for decades against the legality of the federal government collecting income tax, and one who argues that Sen. John McCain, by virtue of his birth 72 years ago in the Panama Canal Zone, would be banned from moving into the Oval Office, had he won last month’s election.

Leo Donofrio is a New Jersey lawyer who tried to get Obama and McCain stricken from the New Jersey ballot in November. Donofrio’s case was presented Friday to justices of the Supreme Court. Another case challenging Obama’s eligibility, this one from Pennsylvania, has not yet been presented to the full court for its consideration.

“My question is on a pure constitutional ground,” said Donofrio. “[Obama] is a citizen of the United States. I just don’t believe he’s a natural-born citizen.

“This is the thrust of the attack, picked up by people such as Bob Schulz, an upstate New York engineer who bought two full-page ads in the Tribune this month that called Obama “a usurper” who “would be entitled to no allegiance, obedience or support from the People.

“Schulz has challenged the federal government on issues including the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the income tax. “I have a long history of petitioning the government for redress of grievances for violations of the constitution and the law,” said Schulz, who said he and his wife live on Social Security checks. Schulz said the ads cost “tens of thousands of dollars” and were paid for with more than 500 private donations from individuals who support the effort. He said there were “no financial angels” behind it.

If the Supreme Court decides not to consider the case, Donofrio said there “won’t be any beating on the drums saying there wasn’t any justice.

“But that will not be the end of the matter, Farah vowed.

“It’ll plague Obama throughout his presidency. It’ll be a nagging issue and a sore on his administration, much like Monica Lewinsky was on [ President Bill] Clinton,” Farah said. “It’s not going to go away and it will drive a wedge in an already divided public.

“That may underscore a landscape change in the media, where the Internet is playing a bigger role in setting the agenda. In 2004, the so-called swift boat campaign against Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, began on the Internet. In fact, the co-author of “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” Jerome Corsi, also wrote “Obama Nation,” a book critical of Obama, published earlier this year.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Duke University, said the Internet’s role in forming public opinion is gaining strength. WorldNetDaily, for instance, has one of the faster-growing audiences on the Internet, up 62 percent in the past year, according to Hitwise.

Nyhan co-wrote a study this year that said journalists’ attempts to correct misinformation is unlikely to sway public perceptions because many people want to believe the misperception.

“People often have a strong bias for believing the evidence they want to believe and disbelieving what they don’t believe,” Nyhan said. “There is less of a sense that we all have a common set of facts we can agree on. There’s a polarization, and we can’t even agree on the basic factual assumptions to have a debate.”

Related links:

See the group’s ad

Interesting, the Democrats and the liberal media loved the internet when it worked to get their candidate elected, but now despise the fact that conservative Americans demanding the Constitution be followed have picked up the same sword and are using it against them.

December 8, 2008 Posted by | Liberal Media, Obama | , , , | Leave a comment

Birth Certificate Issue Not Yet Resolved…

From World Net Daily by Janet Porter

Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery

The media bought it. The voters bought it. And now some in Congress are resisting the idea of congressional hearings because they believe that Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” has been posted online.

Not so.

What was posted was not a birth certificate, but something that resembles a “Certification of Live Birth” or COLB, which, even if authentic, does not prove “natural born” U.S. citizenship. You see, in Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital.

It’s Rathergate all over again with more amiss than a 1970s Selectric typewriter. But before I tell you what the experts found, let me ask you a few questions:

1) If you were a natural born American citizen and had it within your means to quiet all the lawsuits and questions with proof, would you do it?

2) If you were a natural born American citizen, would you spend thousands of dollars to fight the legal cases against you, or would you simply answer the legitimate question of whether you meet the constitutional requirements for office?

3) If you were a natural born American citizen, would you forge a document called a “Certification of Live Birth” and tell the public it was a real “birth certificate”?

Click here to view full article.

This question simply isn’t going to go away until the President-elect comes clean.

Dr. Ron Polarik, who has a Phd. in Instructional Media, has determined the document posted to the Daily Kos, supposedly supplied by the Obama Campaign, is a forgery. In this YouTube video, he details his findings. Or, if you prefer, you can read the details in this article on

Several lawsuits have been filed requesting Obama submit the document for verification. One such suit was brought by attorney Philip J. Berg has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. From this article at The Valley Truth published on 11/7/2008…

At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.


Click here to view full article.

So the Supreme Court should have received a response to the writ no later than yesterday. It would seem a simple thing to do if they truly had a legal birth certificate in hand. But, according to this article on World Net Daily

Obama, DNC elude citizenship lawsuit deadline

President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Convention have let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate to document his eligibility for office.


Click here to view full article.

Why wouldn’t they just produce the document and make all this go away? Do the President-elect and his party believe they are above the reach of the Supreme Court? Our constitution is quite clear that this issue must be resolved…

Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Is there any ambiguity here?

Let’s resolve this issue once and for all. The following are links to petitions you can sign to demand the President-elect clear this matter up at once.

It’s time for Obama to come clean. If you agree, please sign the petitions linked above.

December 2, 2008 Posted by | Obama | , , , , | 3 Comments