Ninth Circuit poisoning the well

 Ninth Circuit “legalizes” voter fraud, undermines all authority

by Don Hank

According to the judges of the 9th Circuit, Arizona laws requiring potential voters to present documentation for AZ elections are “illegal.” Supposedly they discriminate against the poor who do not have driver’s licenses.

All the potential voter now has to do is swear that he is a citizen under penalty of perjury and he or she can register to vote.

But since it is illegal to prove that he is lying, this is a de facto legalization of voter fraud and the 9th Circuit knows it. So does any thinking American.

This decision is an attack on the entire legal process. If it is now illegal to ask for documentation for voter registration, then it is automatically illegal for courts to require documentation for anything at all because some are too poor to afford documents.

An applicant for a passport would not have to prove he is the person he says he is. He would only be made to sign a sworn statement that he is that person. Any attempt on the part of officials to prove he is not would be illegal. And because the government is concerned with the poor and their rights, this applicant could not be charged one penny for the passport.

All applicants would be issued passports without proof.

Youngsters would now be free to purchase liquor and cigarettes at will, simply by providing a sworn statement that they are over 21. No one could force them to produce any documentation.

Nor could a suspect be required to present documentation to prove he is who he says he is. He can deny that he is the suspect who was picked up by the police on suspicion of a crime. If they try to prove he is the suspect, he can simply sign a sworn statement that he is in fact someone else, under penalty of perjury. The prosecution would not be allowed to look for evidence to the contrary because, by the 9th Circuit’s logic, the suspect would have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, case closed, no decision allowed.

For that matter, no criminal would ever be tried again in the USA if 9th Circuit logic were applied across the board, because by extension of this twisted logic, a suspect would need only swear he did not commit the alleged crime and would immediately be set free, no questions asked. Sorry for the annoyance, Sir.

As for banks, they have already ceased to require documentation of loan applicants, and the result is a worldwide financial and economic crisis that keeps on taking.

The 9th circuit is also in effect enforcing the notion of equality for every human being on the planet: the right of every person on earth to vote in US elections.

If this decision is allowed to stand, then citizens of other countries can argue that they are being discriminated against because they are “too poor” to travel to the US to vote in our elections.

By the logic of these judges, all human beings over a certain age can vote in US elections simply by swearing they are US citizens.

They can now go to a US embassy and vote there. By 9th Circuit logic, no US embassy official would be allowed to ask for a passport or any other proof except a sworn statement that the voter registration applicant is a US citizen.

I think you can see that Arizona must recover its sovereign right to require proof of citizenship or we are all in grave danger.

First, Arizona can and should appeal this decision and should keep the old law in place until such time as the appeal is heard. But in the event the appeal fails, the election officials and officials involved, including legislators, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, have several types of constitutional recourse, including the 10th Amendment. They can refuse to go along with the decision on the basis that the decision unconstitutionally interferes with the internal affairs of a state and on the basis of their oath of office.

Or if they want to preserve decorum, they can throw the decision back in the 9th Circuit’s face, declaring the old law requiring documentation upon voter registration null and void, based on the 9th Circuit decision, and replacing it with a new law that allows a sworn statement of US citizenship plus proof positive of citizenship – not just the applicant’s sworn statement – but without specifying what kind of proof.  The new law could allow an applicant to use a driver’ license or birth certificate as proof but would not require that particular kind of proof. The sworn statement would not be accepted as proof positive but would be allowed, as long as proof positive were also provided. It would be up to the applicant to provide proof positive but the type of proof – in accordance with the decision – would be up to the applicant. Or in the event such a statement is mandated by federal law, it could even be required, but would not be considered as proof positive, since it obviously is not.

The law would be written as a temporary law, but without an expiration date.

The law in question would state that it would expire shortly after the court that abolished the old law provided an adequate substitute of proof positive of citizenship, whereupon a new law would be written specifying the use of that type of proof specified by the court. The court could not argue against this new law giving it the right to specify the type of proof allowed without admitting it does not allow any proof at all and in fact wants illegal aliens to have the vote.

This would elegantly throw the issue back in the laps of the justices who would now be responsible for coming up with a kind of proof that would satisfy human logic. The beauty of such a law is that, on its face, it at least seems to go on the assumption that the court is not malicious and does not have an interest in allowing undocumented aliens to vote. In fact, while it is obvious that the court is malicious and wants illegal aliens to vote, it would never dare admit this. The court could not come out and say they wanted illegal aliens to vote and hate Arizonans. They have to have something to hide behind, and this decision lets them hide behind the poor.

Such a new “temporary” replacement law in Arizona would on the surface satisfy the letter of the law but would also put the onus on the court to decide the nature of the proof positive that must be provided by voter registration applicants.

The court certainly could not say that a sworn declaration of citizenship provides such proof because Arizona would then point out that such sworn declarations are not seen as proof of anything in other areas of law, such as criminal and commercial law.

If the court kept up the farce despite this revision of the law, Arizona could argue that a sworn statement is not accepted as proof of anything in other areas of law and that the court must provide an alternative that satisfies human logic as to what proof positive actually is. The court would have to admit that it is mililtating against all human logic and then Arizona would have an airtight motive for ignoring the decision. The fact is, it already does, but such a strategy as I have proposed would catapult the issue into the media in such a way that other states would be encouraged to rebel in like manner. People are on the verge of rebelling anyway, and Arizona could be the fuse that sets off the charge.

If all of the above happens to fail, natural laws will intervene as they always do, but the result may not be pretty.

By way of illustration, the irresponsible behavior of the banks and their public partners Fanny-Freddy and insane legislation like the CRA, inevitably resulted in a financial meltdown with universal consequences. More and more people are noticing this, including people outside the US (The NGO Transparency International recently found the US to be perceived as a significantly more corrupt nation than previously). The exact consequences of wholesale voting by non-Americans are hard to imagine or predict.

But eventually, the court’s decision to eliminate the requirement for documentation will affect us all, including the progressives responsible for the decision, because it eliminates almost all authority over anyone, including criminals, thereby undermining the authority of the very court itself. Anarchy is the inevitable result.

So if you want to poison the well, be careful where you drink.

copyright©2010

Further reading:

http://blogs.forbes.com/walterpavlo/2010/10/26/u-s-more-corrupt-in-2010/?boxes=financechannelforbes

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/27-10-2010/115537-obama_mexicans_vote-0/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=221161

Administration’s inaction criminal and impeachable

Constitution: Obama guilty of treason, must be impeached

By Don Hank

I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona

by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

 “Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”

The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

The administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him, must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

The government is not about to protect us from invasion without a significant change, and that change starts with education on the grassroots level. No significant steps toward securing our nation will be taken until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.

Arizona: As a dog returneth to its vomit…

by Don Hank

Arizona re-elected McCain to the Senate yesterday, thereby demonstrating that, despite their support for SB 1070, the majority either have a perhaps subconscious desire to be dominated by Mexican narcoterrorists or they are unfit to govern themselves. Either way, they have moved one more step toward an alien takeover and further isolated themselves from the rest of the American border community that desperately needs courage and wisdom, not folly and dhimmitude in the face of the enemy.

And who will cry for them? My tears are reserved for the innocent, not the complicit.

People wounded in the past by John McCain’s constant treachery will stop sympathizing with Arizona’s illegal alien problems at this point.

The vote for McCain was a slap in the face to every decent patriot.

If the narcoterrorists and small time Mexican thugs decide to take over completely, Arizona had better not expect a lot of sympathy from those who warned them about McCain’s treacherous ways.

McCain was their senator. Now he’s ours, again.

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Proverbs 26:11

As you will understand, this article was written to chastise the lazy, illiterate morons who voted for McCain. I recognize that there are some very hard-working patriots in Arizona who have worked unselfishly for years to stop illegal immigration. They have my deepest sympathy and prayers at this difficult time.

Arizona, get off the RINO bull before it throws you!

Arizona, get off that RINO bull!

Don Hank

A while back I published an article at Laigle’s Forum in which I referred to Arizona as a liberal state. At least one commentator at the site was disturbed by this, insisting that Arizona is a true-blue blue state and Arizonans are conservative.  

I’m not in the mood for shenanigans so let’s cut through the baloney. If Arizona re-elects McCain and passes over truly conservative JD Hayworth then Arizonans will have proved to be sheep and not the broncos and fighting bulls they tout themselves to be.

Yeah, yeah, I know about the skeletons in JD’s closet. So what? It’s nothing compared to McCain’s OPEN skeleton, namely, his voting record! Guess that doesn’t count any more, eh, “conservative” Arizonans? The voting records of these 2 gents is at the ACU site. One of the last years JD was in Congress, he scored 100 to McCain’s 60, so stop kidding yourselves. And puh-leeze don’t tell me McCain has had a change of heart. You know better.

A recent article in Christian Science Monitor shows that Sarah Palin and Jan Brewer’s endorsements are being taken for what they’re worth: establishment GOP tripe. At this rate, their endorsements could become the kiss of death.

Now it is a tribute to the instincts of the American public at large that they aren’t just lying down and playing dead every time Palin and/or Jan Brewer endorse a candidate. I suspect they may be doing just the opposite and automatically rejecting anyone endorsed by the Bobbsy Twins. True, Jan signed a strong immigration bill. But this is election time, so she doesn’t get many points on that score. Worse, she endorses McCain so she loses a lot of points on that score. (As you can see, I am not out to make friends, just a point that other bloggers and reporters are too wussy to make, and some of them I suspect are in McCain’s pocket. I strongly suspect it, no, strongly smell it, and I haven’t the stomach for it).

The situation in Arizona is different from the nation at large. To give you the short story, many Arizonans like to make people think they are conservative. And they even think of themselves that way. The anti-invasion bill makes them look for all the world like conservatives too.

But I’m not convinced.

You know why? Because these people are the same ones who read only the front label on the food package, the one that says “diet” or “low-fat” such-and-such — terms not subject to strict regulation. But they never read the actual nutritional information on the back of the package because they suspect the product contains a lot of fat and carbs and they don’t want to know. They’re only out to assuage their consciences. The fact is, they’re too lazy to change. They’re only pretending to care about their health and the welfare and happiness of their loved ones. What they really want is to die happy and fat, leaving their families to fend for themselves.

They’re despicable.

If they can’t face the hard truth in this Senatorial election, then I will continue to call AZ a blue state. So will a lot of others. Of course, there are some real conservatives there. Senator Pearce, author of SB 1070, is endorsing JD.

GOP doesn’t automatically mean conservative any more, not by a long shot. And a state that calls itself conservative but votes RINO consistently is just throwing the bull.

And now have a look at what is happening to Arizona’s border region thanks to pro-amnesty activists like John McCain working hard against the will of the people for many many years. It’s sickening, but you know you asked for it, Arizona:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/tc-off-topic/2010/08/20/living-on-the-border-a-look-at-life-in-my-neck-of-the-woods/

Arizona, you CAN’T blow THIS one!

Don Hank

A recent article by Jesse Mathewson tries to show that maybe McCain and Hayworth are both wrong for Arizona. He’s right about McCain. But he uses a now largely discounted scandal and an obscure vote on Singapore free trade to cast doubt on Hayworth.

Now in all fairness, Jesse has written a fair number of articles with genuinely conservative content. However, he has consistently supported an obscure no-experience candidate, Jim Deakin, whose chances to defeat McCain are remote, while Hayworth is fairly well — if precariously — positioned.

Further, Mathewson’s attempt to equate John McCain and J.D. Hayworth is definitely skewed if you consider the ratings of Hayworth and McCain given by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

In 2005, for example, ACU assigned a grade of 65 to McCain and 100 to Hayworth.

In 2005, it was 80 to 100 in favor of Hayworth.

I don’t know about you, but if I were a college admissions officer considering 2 students and one had McCain’s near-failing to lackluster grades and the other had Hayworth’s top notch grades, I would choose Hayworth in a heartbeat.

Of course, there is this other guy Deakin, who may be ok. But how can we know? By what he says he’ll do? Remember how Obama sweet-talked us? Are you ready to vote for an unknown when you have a hard-working tried and proven A student waiting in the wings? And, strangely, Mathewson doesn’t say a word about illegal immigration, the key issue this year. If his candidate has a strong position on it, why doesn’t he say so? It’s his golden opportunity.

JD Hayworth obviates all other alternatives this year. After all, given the state of the polls today, a vote for Deakin is probably a vote for John McCain and we can’t afford another 6 years of waffling and pandering to illegal aliens.

On the other hand, Deakin has a chance to show Arizonans he has real character. By throwing his weight toward JD Hayworth and ridding America of a dangerous RINO once and for all. That in itself could be the start of a brilliant political career.

Hayworth:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2005/2005House.htm

McCain:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2006/2006senate