Czar Held Accountable

Obama's Radical Czars
President Obama appointed over 30 "Czars" in his administration without ever having them vetted by the United States Senate. Obama circumvented the usual process and did this HIS way. This is beginning to be detrimental to Obama because Congress is finally waking-up about the character of some of these appointees.

Car Czar Praises Violence
Last year Glenn Beck showed a video of Mr. Bloom praising the Chinese Communist Mao Zedong (a mass murderer and Chinese revolutionary). Obama's car "Czar" Ron Bloom, is also Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury. He denounces Capitalism and shows some other serious anti-American sentiments.

So why was he appointed by Obama? Does Obama share Mr. Bloom's sentiments about America? It's ironic that it took Congress this long to confront Mr. Bloom about his anti-American views and support of murdering Communist regimes and oppressive governments. Here is the confrontation being performed by Congress.

Action To Take
Stop believing the spin coming from the Obama administration about how good the economy is doing and the number of jobs the government has created under Obama. Stop accepting the fact that Obama has surrounded himself with radicals who love Mao. Remember Green Czar Communist Van Jones? Was he also a coincidence?

Don't be fooled again. This isn't a Communist country (yet). Don't let it become one in 2012!

Guest Article - Failed Jury System

Casey Anthony juror: If not for the death penalty, we might have convicted her
by Allahpundit - HotAir.com

"I’ve watched it four times and I’m still not sure what she means. To begin with, as far as I’ve always understood, a jury’s not supposed to consider the penalty when deliberating about guilt. The defendant’s guilty or not based on the evidence; you worry about punishment after you answer that question. If she’s saying that her findings of fact would have been different had a nonevidentiary variable been changed, then she’s actually practicing a subtle form of nullification here. I don’t know, maybe Florida law is different. Either way, there’s no way to stop a jury from considering whatever it wants to consider, proper or not.

Could be all she’s saying is that the prospect of death drove home to the jury that this wasn’t a game, that they had to scrutinize the prosecution’s murder narrative with their most skeptical, exacting eye. Okay — but then why’d they acquit her on manslaughter and aggravated child abuse too? Did the jury perhaps mistakenly believe that those crimes also carried the death penalty? A quote from the clip: “If they’d charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted or, you know, got a guilty sentence, but not for death. Not for first degree.” But … they did charge her with other things. The whole reason the prosecution made the lesser included offenses available was to give jurors an alternative in case they found the evidence of malice aforethought shaky or, I guess, in case they got squeamish about capital punishment. Even Alan “The System Worked” Dershowitz admits that “There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred homicide.” If this juror’s saying that they were inclined to send her to prison had death not been on the table, well, they could have taken death off the table themselves and sent her to prison anyway.

Or maybe, just to make this extra bizarre, she’s suggesting that had the prosecution sought life in prison instead of death, they might have actually convicted her of first-degree murder. In other words, when she says “charged her with other things,” she’s referring to alternate penalties for murder one, not alternate charges. If that’s what she’s saying then my mind is completely blown because the whole narrative that’s been spun thus far — including by this juror — is that there simply wasn’t enough hard evidence to convict Anthony of anything. And in fairness, that’s true of the murder charge: Without evidence that Anthony deliberately killed the baby, there’s really no way to get her on that. But then, during the death penalty question here, Ford seems to turn around and say no, they might have nailed her even on the big charge had lethal injection not been in the mix. Astounding.

I don’t know what the answer is, but oh well. America’s sweetheart will be a free woman next Wednesday thanks to time served, hopefully to embark on a bella vita of media-derived wealth, bitchin’ parties, and lots and lots of civil-suit defenses filed by the endless number of people she’s wronged. One further thought on last night’s post, too: Wasn’t Anthony’s biggest asset in the trial the fact that she was sui generis as a defendant? I gave you a hypothetical last night about a pervert who stumbles upon a body in the woods; applying a rigorous standard of reasonable doubt, that guy should be acquitted at trial too. But in reality, there’s not a jury in America who wouldn’t convict him. He’s too close to the template we all have of how Ted-Bundy-types operate — abduction, sexual assault, murder, and then disposal of the victim in a secluded area. Given how vivid that template is, no one’s going to believe an alternate version of how a male suspect might end up in the woods with a woman’s remains with evidence of a sexual act committed. The risk of letting him back into society is simply too high even though there’s not a shred of hard evidence that he committed any violence against the victim. In Anthony’s case, though, there’s no template. Some mothers do murder their kids, but the template there usually involves some sort of depression/desperation and almost always plays out with mom trying to cover her tracks by publicly begging the phantom suspect who supposedly abducted her kids to bring them back unharmed. Even the bad moms strain to look like good moms — but not Casey. You got none of that with her. The kid disappeared, she said nothing about it to anyone, and then she partied for a month as if nothing had happened. How do you read a psychology like that? How can you rule an accident in or out when you’re grappling with behavior that would be unfathomable even to other child murderers?

Speaking of which, if you’re looking to channel your fury, you might consider signing the petition to enact “Caylee’s Law,” which would make it a federal crime for a parent not to report a missing child in a timely manner. I’d much prefer that that be done at the individual state level, and there’s obviously a debate to be had about what is or isn’t “timely,” but now that we’ve got a template by which horribly callous parents go free in part because they’re horribly callous, we might want to throw up an obstacle. Fun fact: Noted liberal law professor Laurence Tribe thinks Caylee’s Law would be unconstitutional at the federal level because there’s no power to pass it under … the Commerce Clause. Which is the first and last time you’ll ever hear a liberal say that about the CC."

Louise Woodward (Nanny case)
Remember the Nanny case. After a lengthly trial, the judge overruled the jury and let the Nanny go! Why can't the judge overrule the jury here?

Grieving Mother
One picture is worth 1,000 words:

Guest Article - Obama Defends Convicted Rapist

Obama’s Plea for an Illegal Alien Rapist-Murderer
By Joseph Klein FrontPage.Com

"Humberto Leal Garcia, who has been in the United States illegally since he was two years old, faces execution for the brutal kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 16-year-old girl in 1994. Garcia was 21 when he committed the crime for which he is now scheduled to face the death penalty. But not if President Barack Obama and the United Nations have their way.

The prosecution’s evidence at Garcia’s trial included two incriminating statements he made to the police during non-custodial interviews on the day of the murder. It also included forensic evidence.

More specifically, the evidence established that the night on which teenage girl was sexually assaulted and slain: (1) Garcia carried her in an intoxicated semi-conscious state into his car; (2) Garcia was the last known individual to see girl alive; (3) Garcia confessed to police and his brother that he had killed the girl, although he claimed it was an accident; (4) when the girl was placed in Garcia’s car, she was fully clothed; when her body was discovered on a dirt road not far from a party that she and Garcia both attended, it was nude with a stick protruding from her body and (5) a piece of the girl’s bloodied clothing was located at Garcia’s home. Scratches and cuts on Garcia’s face also linked him to the killing.

Garcia was represented by counsel at the trial and on the case’s numerous appeals. He was found guilty, a verdict which has been upheld on appeal. Nevertheless, the Obama administration has followed its pattern of taking states to court regarding illegal aliens, appealing last Friday to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay Garcia’s execution, scheduled to take place in Texas on July 7th. The administration is hung up on the technicality that Garcia, whom the administration described in its 30-page brief to the Supreme Court as “a Mexican national who has resided in the United States since he was two years old,” was not given advice regarding the opportunity to contact the Mexican consulate after his arrest, which is reportedly required under the international treaty known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Note that he was not prevented from requesting contact with the Mexican consulate.

Garcia is trying to take advantage of a ruling of the International Court of Justice requiring the review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of Mexican nationals whose “rights” under the Vienna Convention have been supposedly violated. In 2004, the International Court of Justice determined, in what is known as the Avena case, that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention by failing to inform 51 Mexican nationals, including Garcia, of their Vienna Convention rights, and by failing to notify consular authorities of the detention of 49 Mexican nationals, including Garcia.

The international court ruled that the appropriate remedy for those violations “consists in the obligation of the United States of America to provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of [affected] Mexican nationals.” The international court stated that review and reconsideration should occur through a judicial process and that the relevant inquiry in that process would be whether the treaty violation caused actual prejudice to the defendant.

Garcia has already received this judicial review in the United States at the state and federal level. He has lost multiple appeals. The Texas trial court rejected the no consulate contact claim on the merits, finding that because Garcia was not in custody at the time he was interviewed by the police, Vienna Convention obligations were not triggered and, accordingly, his statements were not obtained in contravention of the Vienna Convention. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals likewise denied relief based on the trial court’s findings and its own review. Multiple appeals at the state and federal court level followed, each resulting in a rejection of the argument that Garcia’s rights were violated as a result of his not being informed of the opportunity to seek the advice of the Mexican consulate at the time of his arrest.

In fact, the Federal District Court found that there was “no arguable merit” to Garcia’s claim that he had sustained “actual prejudice.” Conducting what it described as the judicial review and reconsideration required by the International Court of Justice decision, the court stated that there was “little the Mexican government could have done to aid petitioner’s trial counsel.” The federal Court of Appeals vacated this specific finding on the technicality that the district court had erroneously assumed “hypothetical jurisdiction” — whatever that means — but dismissed Garcia’s claim anyway.

The fact is that every state and federal court that has considered Garcia’s contention that he was actually prejudiced by not having been advised of the opportunity to contact the Mexican consulate at the time of his arrest has dismissed the claim.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration has decided to ride to Garcia’s rescue. In its brief filed last week with the United States Supreme Court, the Obama administration claimed that going ahead with the execution “would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international-law obligation to afford (Leal Garcia) review and reconsideration of his claim that his conviction and sentence were prejudiced by Texas authorities’ failure to provide consular notification and assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations…That breach would have serious repercussions for United States foreign relations, law-enforcement and other cooperation with Mexico, and the ability of American citizens traveling abroad to have the benefits of consular assistance in the event of detention.”

The administration wants the Supreme Court to stay Garcia’s execution for at least six months. The stated purpose of the delay is to give Congress an opportunity to pass legislation that the Supreme Court, in a previous decision involving Mexican nationals, said would make the Avena ruling of the International Court of Justice legally binding under the U.S. Constitution and on the individual states. The legislation would then determine the manner in which the United States abides by that ruling. But the Supreme Court decided that it would not then delay the carrying out of a state court’s death sentence on the possibility that such legislation might be passed at some later date.

Three years later, two of which the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the White House, Congress has still failed to act. Nothing has really changed to justify a decision by the Supreme Court to, in the absence of congressional action, reverse its prior hands-off approach and interfere with the carrying out of Garcia’s death sentence.

Of course, that does not stop the Obama administration from trying. Despite Congress’ inexplicable foot dragging after the last Supreme Court decision on this matter, the Obama administration is suddenly trying to convey that Congress is now moving vigorously ahead. It noted in its filing with the Supreme Court that the Consular Notification Compliance Act has at long last been introduced into the Senate with the hope of passage this session. However, says the administration, even more time is needed to give both houses of Congress the opportunity to consider and pass this legislation. Particularly with the Republicans now controlling the House of Representatives, there is little likelihood of success.

In short, under the Obama administration’s reasoning, the illegal alien Garcia gets to hide behind the United States Congress’ long legislative process in order to put off his execution for the crimes he committed in the state of Texas against a Texas citizen. Apparently, 17 years of delay in carrying out the sentence, as Garcia filed multiple judicial appeals, are just not enough. Those 17 years are longer than his murder victim was alive. But the Obama administration wants to buy him even more time.

Garcia also has the United Nations in his corner, which appealed to Texas Governor Rick Perry for a stay. “The lack of consular assistance and advice raises concerns about whether or not Mr. Leal Garcia’s right to a fair trial was fully upheld,” said Rupert Colville, the spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.

Christof Heyns, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, went even further. He warned that “[I]f the scheduled execution of Mr. Leal Garcia goes ahead, the United States government will have implemented a death penalty after a trial that did not comply with due process rights. This will be tantamount to an arbitrary deprivation of life.”

Texas thankfully denied the UN’s request for a stay of Garcia’s execution on such preposterous grounds.

This illegal alien, who has lived in the United States virtually all of his life, has found it convenient to re-discover his Mexican roots as a “Mexican national” just in time to exploit a loophole in the international law governing the reciprocal treatment by countries of each other’s citizens when they are arrested. He was not detained by American federal or state law enforcement officials while in the United States on a business trip or a vacation. Nor was he a worker temporarily in the United States with a visa who got caught up in a problem with the American law. These are the types of individuals who may legitimately need the help of their home country to intercede on their behalf. Garcia, on the other hand, was living his life in the United States since he was two years old, with no discernible attachment to Mexico.

How ironic it is that if Garcia had not killed the 16-year-old girl and continued living his life day-to-day as an illegal alien in the United States, he would no doubt have challenged any deportation efforts to send him back to his native Mexico. And there is little doubt that if Garcia had no criminal record, the Obama administration would not have pursued the deportation. Indeed, under the Dream Act, if it had passed, a crime-free Garcia could have been converted into a legal immigrant on the path to American citizenship. But once having been convicted by the court of the state of Texas where he was living when he committed his capital crime, Garcia expects to be protected as a poor “Mexican national” who apparently woke up one day and found himself in the strange land of the United States of America since the age of 2 with no recourse but the assistance of the consulate of his birth country. And the Obama administration is helping him, along with the United Nations.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The 16-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered so many years ago deserves that justice be finally exacted against her murderer. The girl’s family deserves closure. It is time that the Obama administration began to worry more about the welfare of innocent American citizens than the welfare of the illegal aliens who prey on them."

Congress Has Evolved

Politics and Politicians
Today's blog contains writings from Mark Twain. His sentiments regarding politicians seem to parallel those of the today's Tea Party Movement. Here are several of his observations:

• "Those burglars that broke into my house recently are in jail, and if they keep on they will go to Congress. When a person starts downhill you can never tell where he's going to stop."


• "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is not distinctly native American criminals class except Congress."


• "Political parties who accuse the one in power of gobbling the spoils etc are like the wolf who looked in at the door and saw the shepherds eating mutton, and said: 'Oh, certainly - it's all right as long as it's you - but there'd be hell to pay if I was to do that.'"


• "I guess the government that robs its own people earns the future it is preparing for itself."


• "Yes, you are right - I am a moralist in disguise; it gets me into heaps of trouble when I go thrashing around in political questions."


• "But no, that would be common sense - and out of place in government."


• "All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."


• "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."


• "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them."


• "I think I can say, ans say with pride, that we have some legislatures that bring higher prices that any in the world."


• "A pretty air in an opera is prettier there than it could be anywhere else, I suppose, just as an honest man in politics shines more than he would elsewhere."


• "I am quite sure now that ofter, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above a monkey's."


• "I will not go any further into politics as I would get excited, and I don't like to get excited."

Lessons Learned
History repeats itself. Although these remarks were written (for the most part) back in the late 1800s, they still seem to be in touch with the reality of today. Sad but true. The message is clear. If you want to maintain your freedoms, we must all be vigilant of Congress, the Constitution, and the President.

In Closing
"If this nation has ever trusted in God, that time has gone by; for nearly half a century almost its entire trust has been in the Republican party and the dollar - mainly the dollar." It's time to get rid of the corruption and dishonesty in Washington,once again America.

Most Expensive Jobs Ever

Report Timing
The Obama administration released an important economic report just before the holiday weekend. Remember, you always have to watch both hands of this administration because they're sneaky. The simple reason for the pre-holiday release of information is that it contained BAD news and no one watches the news just before and during a national holiday.

Proof Of Economic Failure
So what did the "Seventh Quarterly Report" contain regarding the Stimulus and its impact on the economy? Not much, except it proves that Obama's Stimulus did very little to stimulate the economy. No, instead, it actually stimulated the national debt big time! This report was written by a group of three hand-picked Obama economists. They point-out that the cost of the jobs that the Stimulus DID create made them the most expensive jobs on the planet! The report states that each job created cost $278,000 per job.

Another way of looking at this information is that if the government would have cut checks for $100,000 for each person employed by the Stimulus, the US taxpayers would have saved $427 BILLION! In other words, they pissed it away BIG TIME instead! Was this deliberate?

The report points-out that even without the Stimulus, the economy would have created or saved more jobs without the Stimulus! In fact, over the last six months, the Stimulus has been working in reverse causing the economy to loose jobs! To be blunt: The Obama Stimulus has undermined the economy's recovery leaving America an additional $666 BILLION more in debt!!

Who Wrote The Stimulus?
It was pointed-out on national TV (Glenn Beck Show) that the Communist linked Apollo Alliance and the Tides Foundation wrote the Stimulus bill. Recall also that these organizations are funded by none other than George Soros.

Questions to Ask

• Is it any wonder that the Stimulus failed?
• Why did Obama back this Communist-authored bill?
• Why did Congress approve a Communist-authored bill?
• Who's running this country?
• Is Obama just a puppet on George Soros's string?

Throw Out The Trash
Vote-out all of the "thugs" (including Obama) who supported the Stimulus bill in November 2012.

Latest News "Leak" on The Debt Ceiling

Mini-Debt Ceiling Deal in the Works
American voters take WARNING! The news has leaked-out over the 4th weekend that the "Republicans" (RINOS = Republicans in name only) may accept a "mini-deal" with the Obama administration to allow him to continue SPENDING! They are floating this idea over the busy holiday weekend - a time when few pay attention to the news.

Their "mini-deal" will allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling, keep borrowing and spending, so that they can delay the "politically difficult decisions" until AFTER the November 2012 elections! YOU BASTARDS!

Sold-Out for Re-election
We no longer have two distinct political parties. They are BOTH BAD! They are BOTH CORRUPT! Neither cares about us. They prove it every day and with their political bantering and a whopping 18% approval rate. No wonder.

Isn't it interesting how this "mini-deal" announcement was carefully orchestrated to be slipped into the busy weekend when Americans pay little attention to the news. The GOP has decided to postpone making the hard decisions on cutting the budget and spending less until after their upcoming elections. What's the big deal? We'll just borrow more money and let the future generations worry about paying for our malfeasance! No, we don't think so! What are we paying you for? Answer: To lead, and make the right decisions for the country.

Make no mistake, that's what this is REALLY ALL ABOUT! It's not about saving America, it's about getting re-elected! Neither political party gives a care about you! All they care about is themselves! Their greed and corruption come first - at YOUR EXPENSE!

It's important for YOU - fellow citizens, to remember who is responsible for this greedy act. House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) is leading the way on this effort to perpetuate the national debt. HE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE RE-ELECTED! In fact. any politician (in either political party) who supports the extension of the national debt ceiling is guilty of MISCONDUCT! None of them deserve re-election. America is dying a slow death because of lack of leadership. Remember this in November 2012!

Socialist Agenda
You cannot expect a leopard to change his spots. Obama STILL wants to SPEND-SPEND-SPEND and he wants to raise taxes. Gee, that sounds like a serious effort to cut spending, reduce entitlement, and avoid borrowing. He doesn't listen to the American people because Obama has HIS OWN AGENDA to radically and "Fundamentally Change America."

You can't "negotiate" with this "logic". Obama refuses to stop HIS Socialist agenda. We weren't paying attention to his pre-election message. That was OUR fault. Now America is wide-awake and sees the picture.

Save America
Don't give into this guy. He's destroying the very fabric of America a piece at a time. Regulate here, tax there, bailout here, borrow there, punish the rich, and give to the poor. Soon we will all be on the government dole and he will control your lives more like a monarch than a President!

Bring-back America values! Support Tea Party candidates. Refuse to keep rewarding the "Good-Old-Boys" in Washington. Dump the CHUMPS ion 2012! All of them!

Delinquent Vetting Process

Here's yet another reason to distrust Congress. They screwed-up AGAIN! What a surprise!! They've earned the 18% approval rating!!!

Obama's recent Supreme Court appointee (2010) Elena Kagan, gave conflicting testimony during her confirmation hearings to get the job. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating these allegations. Apparently Kagan should recuse herself from ANY court cases involving ObamaCare because she has ties to it when she was serving as Obama's Solicitor General. Until now, it was doubtful that Kagan would do so.

They Also Missed Something Else
While being confirmed, this blog pointed out that Kagan also had close ties to Obama as Solicitor General in blocking all attempts to see or get copies of his birth certificate. If you search the Supreme Court dockets and include "Kagan and "Obama" you would have discovered at least six times that Justice Kagan squelched attempts by individuals trying to access Obama's birth certificate information. It's a matter of public record. Why didn't Congress find this out?

Questions:

• Why didn't Congress uncover these facts before Kagan was confirmed? WE DID!
• Wouldn't this lead to where we are today?
• Isn't this a conflict of interest?
• Did she get the Supreme Court position as a pay-off for guarding Obama's personal information?
• Was there a crime committed here?
• Was Kagan's appointment a quid-pro-quo?
• Can Kagan be removed because of her false or misleading testimony under oath?
• Should she be removed from the bench?

This SMELLS FUNNY
If it walks like a duck... You get the idea. This looks more like what it probably is - another political favor in the form of a kickback. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, Kagan will be in this position for a lifetime!

Action To Take
Demand that Elena Kagan NOT participate in ANY suits or Supreme Court actions that involve Obama or his administration!