Conservatively Speaking from Southeastern Wisconsin. A Teleprompter Free Zone.
President Owebama MUST step down IMMEDIATELY!!
According to the left, there is a clause in the Constitution that states there must be a separation of church and state…… Therefore a GOD can NOT be president of the United States!!!!
A Federal Appeals Court has ruled the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional.
You’d think a constitutional attorney masquerading as the President of the United States would know this?
Damn good thing we passed the bill to find out what was in it….
It’s time to take out the trash.
It’s time we send those politicians who claim to know so much about the private sector out into the private sector.
It’s time for those who cause unemployment to be unemployed.
It’s time the elected serve, not officiate.
It’s time to uphold the Constitution, not redefine it.
It’s time to start taking back our FREEDOM!!!!!
IT’S TIME TO VOTE!!!
I believe we have a few senator out there that have forgotten their oath….
Click it…. Read it…..
Here’s your Friday WTF …..
CNSNews had the gall to ask Queen Nancy if gubmint had constitutional authority to mandate health insurance…
(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
Total disregard for the constitution. It’s all about turning this country into a F***ing socialist S**T HOLE…..
I’m so infuriated I’m almost speechless……… The post ends here….
Rep Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has decided to only answer the question that asks how many live in her household on the 2010 ACORN/CENSUS…
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she’s so worried that information from next year’s national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times “America’s Morning News,” Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become “very intricate, very personal” and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau’s door-to-door information collection efforts.
“I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home,” she said. “We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”
Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is “misreading” the law.
She sent a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer “any of the questions” on the census can be fined up to $5,000.
I have heard information that the fine and criminality of not completely filling out the CENSUS are incorrect. The fine for not completing the CENSUS is $100 not $5000. Criminal charges and a $5000 fine are applicable to any census official found to have improperly disclosed or misused census information.
How are YOU gonna answer theses questions???
This will probably be about the only good news you’ll hear for busniess in this state for a while….
A judge Friday struck down Milwaukee’s controversial paid sick day ordinance that mandates that private employers provide paid sick leave, ruling it was invalidly enacted and unconstitutional.
In a 38-page decision, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Thomas Cooper wrote, “This is a case where the proposed ordinance’s reach exceeds its grasp.”
Of course this will be appealed. Milwaukee’s lazy want their free lunch..er… sick days.
Now if we could just get a ruling on the constitutionality of a sitting president firing the CEO of a private company…..
Because there was no violation of any so-called “separation of church and state.”
That’s what we are lead to believe by Obummblers lastest nomination for SCOTUS
Oh… And those pesky facts….. Pffffffftttt. Who needs em?
Will the Rhinopubbies slam her on this?
Here’s Tom Barrett’s quote about open carry:
“My position is that there’s a fundamental difference between carrying a gun in Vilas County on your own land and carrying an AK-47 or Uzi to watch the Circus Parade in Milwaukee,”
I noticed many news outlets did not report the whole quote, specifically the part about the AK’s and Uzi’s. I’m sure they saw the lunacy in the statement and wanted to protect their clueless lefty mayor as best as they could…
It seems Milwaukee’s lovable police chief doesn’t care much for the constitution and finds people that exercise their constitutional rights are apparently bad…
Yesterday, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B.Van Hollen issued a long-awaited advisory memorandum making it clear that merely openly carrying a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, is protected behavior under Article I, § 25 Of The Wisconsin Constitution and will never justify a disorderly conduct charge absent other criminal behavior.
I join other gun rights advocates in applauding AG Van Hollen for issuing an opinion that was much needed in Wisconsin where, in recent months, multiple citizens had been harassed, charged and had their property confiscated for merely exercising their rights under the state constitution.
And while this memo was issued specifically to the state’s district attorneys, I presume that all of the chief law enforcement officers in the state are also being made aware of this memorandum. After all, it was the overzealous activities of certain departments such as West Milwaukee, Chilton and West Allis in harassing law-abiding gun owners that led to the need for the AG to address the issue.
Taxpayers in West Milwaukee and Chilton are already facing a federal lawsuit filed last week by Wisconsin citizen Jesus Gonzales, who was repeatedly harassed by these departments, jailed, had his property confiscated but was ultimately never charged.
The legal vehicle which allows a citizen to sue officials over such misconduct is 18 U.S.C. § 1983 which allows one to sue for civil rights violations that occur “under color of law.” The Supreme Court has defined what is required for an official to be said to be acting “under color of law” as having “exercised powers possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.” Clearly police and prosecutorial misconduct meet this definition and it is anticipated that Mr. Gonzales will ultimately prevail in his suit.
The good news for the taxpayers of Wisconsin is that, now that AG Van Hollen has issued this memorandum, there should be no further official misconduct or harassment of law-abiding gun owners leading to further waste of taxpayer dollars … Right?
Well … let’s not jump to conclusions. Another important issue that AG Van Hollen attempted to address in his memorandum was whether or not the simple act of openly carrying a firearm would justify a non-consensual detainment, by law enforcement, of a citizen. This is often referred to as a Terry Stop.
The memo answers this question in the affirmative and then goes on to point out that this would only be true however if the “totality of the circumstances” provides the officer with reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Given the fact that Terry Stops are frequently misused by law enforcement, the structure and wording of the memo, while perfectly legally correct, may mislead law enforcement agencies into the belief that simply seeing a person open carrying will justify a non-consensual encounter.
As if to prove my point, in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn said he would advise his officers to question anyone out in public with a gun. He went on to say that “If my officers see someone walking around the City of Milwaukee with a firearm openly displayed, it borders on irresponsible if I were to communicate to members of my community that they can carry that firearm with impunity.”
It sure sounds to me as if Chief Flynn is planning to utilize the power and authority conveyed upon him by the state of Wisconsin to enforce a “chilling effect” upon the rights of citizens by intimidating those who dare to exercise those rights. Now when I word it like that, I suspect that the Wisconsin civil rights attorneys reading this article get a twinkle in their eye and an unconscious desire to pull up their billing software.
It appears to me that Milwaukee is still a few judgments short of a complete understanding of the limits that a free society places upon the police power.
Note to Chief Flynn….. The guys you want to bust are hiding their illegally attained weapons. The guys (and gals) wearing weapons on their hip, out in the open, are trying to protect themselves from the guys you’re supposed to be busting…..
I’m just sayin’
H/T: Ol’ Broad
Is it time to move in with Ick????
WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”
Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."
A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.
It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.