Obama lawsuit against Arizona not based on law

Obama’s lawsuit against AZ is not based on law

Don Hank

As a legal/technical translator, I have read and translated my share of legal briefs.

The lawsuit brought by the Obama administration against AZ is by far the lamest, most juvenile brief I have read in my nearly 40 years of exposure to such texts. The main reason for this is that, in all of the lawsuits I have read heretofore, there is a citation of law. Here there are no laws cited at all and also no case law. It fails in fact to rise to the level of a legal brief. The fact that it was even accepted by the Supreme Court is an ominous sign for our country.

Text sample [my comments in brackets]:

“It [the AZ law] will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens [How will it conflict with federal law if it agrees with it? No legal precepts or laws specified]. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution [First, what protections are legally available for “an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution”? Would an alien have a well founded fear of persecution if he was acting within the law? Further, since the AZ law is based on federal law, then it would have to be the federal law that is ignoring humanitarian concerns. No laws specified] or who has been the victim of a natural disaster [If it is legal to enter the US without papers on the grounds of a natural disaster, then AZ law does not apply because it is based on US law. If it is illegal to enter the US without papers in case of a natural disaster, then the courts must base their decision on the law as written, not on controversial opinion as to what constitutes a hardship case and whether humanitarian concerns override the law in such a case. Besides, again, the federal law is the basis for this AZ law, so it is not fair to single out AZ as one of many states that expect federal immigration law to be obeyed within its boundaries or to punish the state for having such reasonable expectations]. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries [Is this diplomatic relationship not based on law? If not, on what is it based? If something other than law, then this is not a matter for the courts to decide, because they are charged only with evaluating the legal aspects of any case or law, not the diplomatic aspects].”

 If the Supreme Court sides with Obama in this case, then we can no longer in any way expect our legal system to base any decision on the law as written. Legal decisions then become a matter of personal philosophy of the judges. For example, the president could demand in a lawsuit that all auto makers and sellers cease and desist from their activity on the grounds that some cars have fatal accidents.

The courts have always sided with the States in matters of immigration of this kind, so a departure from case law would also open up a new era of total randomness in court decisions. No legal system can stand for long under such circumstances.

Further reading: 


Prop 8 hauled into court — unconstitutionally

If Prop 8 is “overturned” it will only be because inept “Christian” “pro-family” and “conservative” lawyers, leaders and pundits allowed it to happen.

by Gregg Jackson

It’s obvious to me that the homosexual activist “judge” Walker in San Francisco will rule for the homosexual plaintiffs who claim Prop 8, legally defining marriage as limited to one man and one woman in the California Constitution, to be “discriminatory” and “unconstitutional.”

If Judge Walker issues a ruling that Prop 8 is “unconstitutional,” he should be impeached immediately by Governor Schwarzenegger. No judge possesses the authority to “overturn” a constitutional amendment passed via the proscribed legislative process by the sovereign voters of the state.

But is there any doubt that “conservative” “Republican” Governor Arnold will pull a Mitt Romney and assert that he “has no choice but to uphold the court’s ruling?”

Of course he will.

And when he does he will have once again abnegated his sworn duty to uphold the federal and state constitution he swore an oath in front of God Almighty to protect and defend.



Gregg also tells us Mitt Romney is in full campaign mode right now. That became obvious for me when he conspicuously attended fellow RINO Scott Brown’s acceptance speech and garnered the latter’s support. I had said that if Senator McCain is reelected, that would signal the complete collapse of the Tea Party movement, most of which has already been preempted by the Michael Steele’s GOP (the “right” wing of the Democratic Party). Well, Mitt being elected president would mean the entire movement has been fully absorbed by the RINOs. Here is Gregg’s excellent list of Mitt’s fiscal and social misdeeds:

Mitt Romney, Fiscal and Social Liberal:

  • Illegally & unconstitutionally instituted sodomy “marriage.” Proof here and here
  • Signed $50 tax-subsidized abortions into law (2 years AFTER his fake “pro-life conversion.”) Proof here
  • Boosted funding for homosexual “education” starting in kindergarten. Proof here
  • Opposes a ban on homosexual scoutmasters. Proof here
  • Promised the homosexual Republican “Log Cabin Republicans” he wouldn’t oppose “gay marriage” in return for their endorsement. Proof here
  • Instituted a quasi-socialist healthcare plan endorsed by Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and Planned Parenthood that destroyed the Massachusetts’ economy. Proof here and here.
  • Increased taxes and fees by close to a billion dollars which destroyed the Massachusetts’ economy. Proof here
  • Voted # 8 RINO by Human Events. Proof here.
  • Passed over Republican lawyers for three quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he faced and nominated 2 open homosexuals. Proof here
  • Criticized Joint Chief’s of Staff, Peter Pace for saying that homosexual acts were “immoral.” Proof here
  • Supports passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would force churches and other religious organizations to hire homosexuals and transvestites or face criminal fines and prosecution. Proof here.
  • Romney opposed the Bush Tax Cuts and supported McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform”, McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” (i.e. amnesty), and parts of the McCain-Lieberman “carbon cap and trade” bill.

Amazing so many “conservatives” portray this guy as a true blue Reagan conservative. He is a total and absolute liberal across the board. And he is one of the keynote speakers at CPAC in a few weeks. What a joke!

He also opposed the Bush Tax Cuts and supported Bush-Kennedy-McCain and Carbon Tax legislation, championed Mike Pence’s  “touchback” scheme for illegal aliens, where the illegals simply take a step back into Mexico, then re-enter the U.S. with papers and are “legalized”.

Finally, he was thoroughly embarrassed and destroyed politically when competitor Rudy Giuliani called him out on Mansiongate TWICE on two debates in a row telling voters that Romney had hired a contractor who had hired illegals to work on his Mansion’s grounds and that he hadn’t done anything about it until after the second debate where Giuliani raised the point again
Sorry for the hodgepodge here at the end, but people have been emailing me to add more Romney sins. This is a full-time job! DH

America lacks standing

America lacks standing


By Donald Hank


Well, the Donofrio case against Obama (one of the many court cases the media refused to tell you about for months), demanding the showing of a real birth certificate, has failed, and I am getting near-frantic emails from conservatives who had entertained hopes that Donofrio, and hence, justice for all, would prevail.

Here is what I am telling them:

The constitutional damage was first done in 1913 with the institution of the Federal Reserve and income tax, and was almost total by 1973 with Roe v Wade, when some justices unlawfully decided that the Constitution affords a right to kill, and there was no general outcry.

They stopped defending the unborn, but I wasn’t an unborn so I said nothing…

The Constitution was further undermined by G.W. Bush when he decided that, as chief law enforcer, he could pick and choose which of his constitutional duties to fulfill and chose not to comply with his duty to defend our borders. He suggested this was his duty as a Christian, saying on national TV, first, “they are good people looking for a better way of life”…and ending with “it [letting undocumented stay illegally] is good for our soul.”

Bush thereby not only overstepped his constitutional bounds but also donned the clerical hat, as though America had anointed him as their Pope, not their president. And here is where “conservatives” got egg on their faces. Many gave him a pass, believing in their hearts that Bush was sent by God as their “ruler” rather than lending him power with the reservation that he uphold the Constitution, as must be done in a Republic. Thus it wasn’t Bush who failed. It was American Christians.

They stopped defending the victims of violent crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens, but I wasn’t a victim of crimes committed by illegal aliens, so I said nothing…

McCain did likewise, supporting an illegal bill to give amnesty to lawbreakers. He too played pope, condescendingly calling illegal Mexicans “God’s little children.” Obama and his party did much the same simply by ignoring the issue.

Then the president and both candidates strongly supported an unconstitutional role of government in our economy, giving failed banks a trillion dollars in an unprecedented move to blend government and business, plunging the US into full-fledged fascism. A few conservatives bravely pointed to the role played by the Community Reinvestment Act, but then fell silent. (I received a lengthy commentary on the causes of the bank crisis, written by a “conservative” think tank. It failed to even mention the role of the CRA, a Democrat law that forced banks to lend $1 trillion to “underserved communities” notorious for bad credit, high unemployment and welfare entitlements.)

No one in the highest positions is now following the Constitution, let alone showing common sense, so how can anyone contest what Obama is doing?

We didn’t protest Wade v Roe, not enough of us protested amnesty and open borders, we allowed these to become non-issues during the campaign – for fear of the big, bad ‘bama – and now that the bailout is a fait accompli, few are protesting it any longer. And we wonder why the courts aren’t listening when someone protests that an illegal alien is president.

Then they abandoned me and there was no one left with the moral standing to defend my Constitutional right to a legitimate American born president.

It was the choice of Americans to ignore the Constitution, and the powerful undercurrent to scrap the Constitution and to substitute it with the public whim du jour may well have too much momentum to stop at this point.

So now, tell me the truth: were you really surprised that Donofrio failed?

And yet, God is still on His throne. Watch closely for His hand now.



Fascism, it’s all the rage in America


Donald Hank


A few years back I started noticing free AOL CDs on display at the local post offices. I was annoyed that AOL could get free advertising. I am a businessman too, so why wasn’t the US government advertising my business? Or yours for that matter.

So I asked an official at the window how it is that the US government can choose one business over all the others to promote? Was that legal? It certainly was not fair.

No one knew the answer to that, but I kept protesting it every time I went to the post office. The officials I spoke with were sympathetic but all said I was the only one protesting. Everyone else seemed to think this was fine.

To be fair, the advertisement was ostensibly focused on the post office’s new web page, and that was the pretext for the free plug for AOL. But it wasn’t kosher because no other internet company was mentioned. Eventually they stopped.

Of course, even further back than that we saw Chrysler getting bailed out at taxpayers’ expense. And now we see major banks getting bailed out as a reward for dismal performance and the auto workers lined up for their reward for the same kind of performance and for overpaying their workers, and it is clearly just the beginning of a burgeoning trend.

How long will it last?

I think the answer is: until such time as it fails, and like all other unconstitutional policies, it will inevitably fail due to natural causes.


RWTNs may save America


Donald Hank


It was a communist, Deng Xiaoping, who fixed a nation destroyed by Chairman Mao. He did it using a novel system: capitalism. The fact is, all leftist mistakes are eventually fixed by leftists using conservative methods that had been previously denounced.

Another example, it was a group of French communists (Stephane Courtois et al.) who bravely wrote “The Black Book of Communism” exposing that fact that about 100 million innocents had lost their lives on the altar of the Left in the 20th Century.

Thus, to save the day, Left inevitably drifts rightward. It will always be so as long as God is in His heaven and His natural laws are “on the books.”

By now you have probably heard of Michelle Rhee, the no-nonsense Chancellor of Washington DC’s school system, who is being entrusted with fixing what the Dems broke. She is a Dem too but is using a Republican method: discipline, for both teachers and students. Her draconian measures will include weakening the tenure system while strengthening performance pay for teachers and closing several failing schools, all to the vain protests of the teachers’ unions. Nature has won out, by proving the failure of Leftist control over education (Washington’s schools have been among the worst in the world).

The Left can hate conservatives as much as they want, but their would-be utopian world will inevitably continue to fall apart, and when they can’t stand it any more they will become RWTNs, Republicans Without The Name, the mirror image of RINOs.

As Anne Coulter famously said in a book by that title, if liberals were smart they’d be Republicans. I would modify that and say “if Republicans were smart they’d be Republicans,” but it’s a little late for that.

But to return to my story, let’s take a look at what the Dems have had to do over just the last 2 decades or so:

– Clinton was given the – for him – distasteful job of “fixing” welfare. The Republican congress forced his hand, but he would eventually have had to reform the system anyway out of sheer embarrassment. He did a passable job, short of eliminating the dreadful system altogether.

– Democrats (as well as Republicans) in Louisiana rejected Congressman William Jefferson, a Democrat who stole too much, this election.

– And note that it was a Democrat, Phillip Berg, who first sued Barack Obama and the DNC for failing to present proper credentials for their candidate.

– The Department of Public Health of the fanatically pro-homosexual government of Massachusetts recently came out with a report showing that homosexuality is unhealthy and leads to destructive behavior. (Conservatives had been saying that forever but were shouted down).

All of this is evidence of what I had tried to show in my WND article “The socialist State: a hotbed of capitalism,” namely, that behind the scenes of every leftist policy is a hidden conservative system that props up failed socialism.

So what is the secret to all of these successes of the RWTN’s? And what was the role of conservatives?

In each of these cases, conservatives had long done the research needed to lead to these positive results.

Yet, nothing happened until “liberals” were allowed to believe that they had come across the information, and the resulting solutions, on their own.

In other words, we must use the same system used successfully with all children.

Tip: To avoid out-of-control, violent tantrums, do not, under any circumstances, remind liberals that it was our idea first.