This'n'That; April Second; Lord obama

What Hath He Wrought?
    What can we truly say
"Lord-on-High, Clown Prince obama-The Least-Honest-Among-Us"
has brought the masses? Come, on!!  Think about it, what's he brought to the table?!?  As a Conservative Constitutionalist--NOT in the "Tammy Faye Boehner" vein--I can think of nothing POSITIVE that he's brought to any table; let's check, in no particular order:
1.  In obama's latest fiscal kerfuffle with "Tammy Faye" Boehner was neither balanced, nor concerned with any long-range effects on the national debt, or
2.  The public's waiting for a "Clown Princical" threat toward Chief Justice John Roberts--on the currently debated DOMA and gay marriage issues--as he did during the obamaKare debates infront of the Supreme Court, or   
3.  "Clown Prince" obama has expressed a desire to do away with the 'debt ceiling,' thus giving an unlimited credit card to a man who's already maxed-out all his other credit cards, or
4.  "Clown Prince" obama regularly proves that he's controlled by someone/some other organization.  He continually flip-flops on various previous positions, as directed by The Bilderberg Group or the Bank for International Settlements. Can anyone spell gay marriage or DOMA--among many other topics--or
5.  For "Clown Prince" obama, Hurricane Sandy was little more than photo/blather ops between the U.S. mainland landfall on October 29 until the national election on November 6, 2012.  Many victims are STILL WAITING for aid and assistance--some FIVE MONTHS--from the obama failed FEMA, while the "Clown Prince" and family have taken THREE taxpayer-funded VACATIONS since re-immaculation, or
6.  We all remember the "Clown Prince" obama blatherings about how beneficial obamaKare would be to all Americans, especially the poor, the down-trodden, the homeless, the unemployed, the underemployed as well as the blondes, the brunettes, the bald and all the illegal aliens he's let cross the border!!  EVERY statement has turned out to be a bald-faced lie!!  "Clown Prince" obama is proving to be identical to that childhood friend you had whom you couldn't believe a word that came out of his mouth, or
7.  Thanks to "Clown Prince" obama, the Mexican drug cartels now have pretty-much free reign over most of the continental United States. the obama Regime's complete lack of a border security plan as well as 'playing-the-asshole' with the inane, insane cuts to border patrolmen to 'make the secastration hurt!'
    All these instances--as well as the many more you can think of--must be considered in both the 2014 and the 2016 elections.  Thankfully, we're gonna be rid of the "Clown Prince" in January, 2017, but who will be his replacement?  We now have to worry about whether he/she will have The Bilderberg Group's, the Bank for International Settlement's or the American Nazi-George Soros' mindset driving and funding them!!
    We also must be concerned with the 2014 elections in that the obamacRATics may shore up their majority in the Senate and/or gain a majority in the House of Representatives.  A one-party rule at the federal level will completely finish the obama-generated destruction of America and it's constitution!!  It will be a long, slow process but the "Clown Prince's" blind-followers must be reeducated in economic and fiscal reality.  Tho' many have tried, there's not a country on the planet that can provide everything-to-everyone, it's just not possible, no matter what the 'princely being' tells the populus!!
Comments, anyone?
Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; January First #2; 2013 Predictions

I Found These Predictions:
    I found these predictions while surfing around the web.  They're from the Western Journalism site that is one of my routine 'stepping-stones' in surfing:
{ http://www.westernjournalism.com/predicting-the-biggest-stories-of-2013-part-1/ }
10.  The highest grossing movie of 2012 will be Iron Man 3. [....]
9.    No substantive federal 'gun control' legislation. [....]
8.    A chain reaction on 'Right-to-Work.' [....]
7.    Rubio and Ryan Polish Their Establishment Credentials. [....]
6.    Syria Goes the Way of Egypt. [....]
{ http://www.westernjournalism.com/?s=biggest+stories+of+2013+Part+2 }
5.  Green Bay Packers Win Super Bowl [....]
4.  Israel Finally Strikes Iran [....]
3.  Rand Paul Goes Mainstream [....]
2.  U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Prop-8 [....] 
1.  John Boehner Will Be Ousted As House Speaker [....]
Some of the predictions 'are predictible,' others are surprises.
Your comments?
Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; July Twenty-Fifth #2; Here They Come!

The 'Gun-Grabbers' Are Coming!
    In the wake of the Aurora Theater Massacre, the "gun-grabbers" are hogging the cameras and the communist national press.  To that end--one of Congress' most outspoken Constitution tramplers--Rep Carolyn McCarthy (NY4; Nassau County-Long Island) is out almost demanding that "Clown Prince" obama further reduce the legal availability of small arms.  Said Ms McCarthy:
"I personally think that he [obama] is going to be looking at what he can do on the books, what he can do by executive order, what he can do without having to come to Congress.  He's able to do something."

Might I remind all U.S. Senators and Representatives of the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lest the aforementioned federal miscreants forget, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, thus:
[2008]  In District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
[2010]  In McDonald v. Chicago (561 U.S. 3025), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

    An aware citizen is an 'armed' citizen!  There are folks for which the Second Amendment is but an encumbrance; part of a document that must be negated!  The 'gun-control advocates' are all about CONTROL, little about GUNS!  To me, 'gun control' means using both hands; "double-tap, center mass!"  There most probably will come a time when the tyrannical federal government must be opposed at every turn, in every alley!!
Til Nex'Time....
'Second Amendment, First Priority' from: http://www.fubowear.com/

This'n'That; June Twenty-Fifth #3; Arizona v. owe-bama

As Usual, owe-bama Loses!
    With respect to Arizona's immigration enforcement law (1070),"The Supremes" issued their edict from-on-high:
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-ONE
Sheriff Joe Arpaio-ONE
Conservatism-ONE
"Tea Party" Movement-ONE
owe-bama-ZERO
The Bilderberg Group-ZERO
George Soros-ZERO
Saul Alinsky-ZERO
Socio-fascism-ZERO
"Occupy" Movement-ZERO
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Verdammte Arschloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; June Fourteenth #2; More 'Diaries' (O'Connor)

The Reagan Diaries
    To the reader it should be blatantly obvious that "Ronaldus-Magnus" is by far, my favorite American president.  Arguably the best, most effective president of the twenty- and twenty-first centuries!  Diametrically opposed--both in thought, word and deed--to the "Clown" we have now, President Reagan firstly, lastly and always thought about the country and the affects his decisions had on it's 'health,' welfare, growth, etc.  To that end, Mr Reagan never wanted to be "the first president to...;" at the end of the day, he only wanted what was best for the country.
    As my reading of "The Reagan Diaries" continues--time permitting--I've found entries about the possible selection and Senate confirmation of Mrs Sandra Day O'Connor as the first female Supreme Court Justice:

Monday, June 22  "Bill Smith {William French Smith, Mr Reagan's Attorney General, 1981-'85} came in on the Sup. Ct.  I believe if the check up goes well we should go with the lady in Ariz. to replace Potter Stewart to the Supreme Ct."
Tuesday, July 7  "This morning I announced my nominee for Supreme Court, Mrs. O'Connor of Ariz.  I made some calls because someone has started a bonfire among the Right to Life people.  Apparently it all started with a woman--Dr. Gersten in Phoenix.  Her claims don't match the record we have of O'Connor's voting record when she was a state Sen.  But she's spread her message far & wide.  A full Cabinet meeting on the Ft. Chafee problem (Cubans--criminal & mentally deranged dumped on us by Castro).  We believe we can move them to an unused mil. base in Maryland which can be developed also as a holding area for legitimate refugees in the future."

    President Reagan was far less concerned about Justice O'Connor being the first woman on the Supreme Court; less concerned about himself being the first president to nominate a woman for that position, than about what--and who--would be the best choice for the needs and requirements of the country as a whole.
Note:  Those "{....}" indicate that I added information to supplement and possibly clarify Mr Reagan's diary entries.
Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; April Third #2; The Constitution....?!?

Whiney-Assed Liar!
    I'd like to suggest--for the umpteenth time--that "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist" review the document he's sworn to support and defend--and presumably abide by--The United States Constitution.  No doubt, the next time he reads it, WILL BE THE FIRST TIME!
    After criticizing the Supreme Court as an "unelected group of people;" the "Clown Prince" goes on with blatant lies in an attempt to sway the court's decision relative to owe-bamaKare. 
1.  "....the extraordinary step of overturning a law...."  As a law school 'constitutional law' grad-assistant (NOT a professor as the national pamphleteer 'corpse' would have you believe) the "Clown Prince" should realize the Supreme Court is well within it's authority--and responsibility--to strike down the law, should they decide!!
2.  The legislation was passed by a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"  This--of course--is ANOTHER blatant lie; owe-bamaKare passed by smallest permissible majority possible.
3.  "....I'm confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law...."  As will all other "Princely" actions, owe-bamaKare can not stand on it's merits-IT HAS NONE!  This is just one more example of the national pamphleteer 'corpse' blatantly supporting the "Clown Prince" in his attempt to mold the Supreme Court decision in his favor.
4.  "....its constitutional...."  Nothing more than the "Clown Prince" trying to advance his dictatorial-democracy by controlling yet another INDEPENDENT branch of the federal government.
5.  "....seniors are paying less for prescription drugs under this law...." ANOTHER blatant lie!  Medicare Part D has been in existence since January 1, 2006 (Part D is a part of the 'Medicare Modernization Act of 2003)!!  In 2003, the "Clown Prince" had yet to become the "Clown Prince;" he was a member of the Illinois State Senate.  In 2006, again before the "Clown Prince" became the "Clown Prince;" he was a 'voting-present,' JUNIOR member of the U.S. Senate. 
6.  "....unprecedented...." (the "Clown Prince's" opinion of a Supreme Court 'strike-down' of owe-bamaKare)  ANOTHER blantant lie!  The United States Supreme Court has been striking down unconstitutional laws since 1803 (Marbury vs. Madison).
    In a sidebar comment, "Clown Prince ZERObama, the Narcissist" reminded his adoring subjects that he truly deserves his exalted position:
"My entire career is a testiment to American Exceptionalism."
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Arschloch!?!
Til Nex'Time....
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/apr/2/president-obama-demonizes-supreme-court-possibly-d/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

This'n'That; March Twenty-Eighth #2; SCOTUS, Day #2

Kagan non-Recusal May Not Be Important
    Justices Alito, Kennedy and Scalia as well as Chief Justice John Roberts verbally handed Solicitor General Verrilli his-ass-on-a-silver-platter during today's arguments on owe-bamaKare.  Even the ever-socialist Justice Ginsburg got into the act.... on the respondents' (conservative) side of the argument.
    Justice Scalia (URL below: pg 3, ln 10) was the first to verbally 'step-up-to-the-plate.  Justice Scalia asked the 'General' if the problems he posed, weren't addressed directly by the federal government.
    Justice Kennedy (pg 3, ln 25) asked if commerce can be created in order to regulate it.
    Justice Scalia ( pg 5, ln 9) asked about 'self purchasing.'  He then commented that the failure to purchase a product in a particular market would subject one to regulation.
    Chief Justice Roberts (pg 5, ln 25) compared owe-bamaKare with emergency services, i.e., police, fire, ambulance, road-side service, et al.  The 'consumer' never knows when he will require emergency services or health care, or if he ever will, thus a market already exists.  Chief Justice Roberts also suggested that the government might mandate cell phone ownership, to facilitate calls to 9-1-1.
    Justice Alito (pg 7, ln 12) brought up the possible necessity for burial insurance which completely baffled 'General' Verrilli.  Judging by the text, 'General' Verrilli stumbled over his tongue for several minutes during his exchange with the justice.
    Justice Alito (pg 9, ln 23) may have discovered as the true intent of owe-bamaKare, I quote the justice:
"....isn't it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the servies they are going to consume?  It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else."
    Justice Ginsburg (pg 10, ln 20) got into the act with this quote:
"If you're going to have insurance, this is how insurance works."
    The testimony before the Court continued for a total of 109 pages; over 2 hours, 2 minutes.  I thought it might be dry and legalistic, but actually enjoyed reading the transcript of Day #1.  The give-and-take between the justices and 'General' Verrilli looked--to me--to be very embarrassing for the 'General.'  Later today I intend to read the respondents' arguments.
Til Nex'Time....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/27/obamacare-at-the-supreme-court-day-two-rapid-reactions/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

This'n'That; March Twenty-Eighth #1;owe-bamaKare-SCOTUS

Day #1 owe-bamaKare Arguments Before SCOTUS
    Monday--March 26th--was Day #1 of the Regime's Solicitor General arguing possible merits of owe-bamaKare before the Supreme Court.  The first day's proceedings involved:
Robert Long, ( *URL below; page 3) court appointed for the Amicus Curiae (friend of the Court),
Donald Verrilli, Jr., (page 30) Solicitor General, on behalf of the Petitioners,
Gregory Katsas, (page 56) on behalf of the Respondents,
Robert Long, (page 73) rebuttal for the Amicus Curiae.
    Mr Long argued the assessment and collection of the section 5000A penalties and how the "Anti-Injunction Act (1867)" applies to the legality of said assessments and collections.  Chief Justice Roberts, the Associate Justices and Mr Long had a lengthy 'go-around' concerning possible applications of the Anti-Injunction Act (1867); what's a procedural rule; what's a jurisdictional rule as well as why a monetary item might be an assessment or a penalty but not a tax. 
    'General' Verrilli intially argues that the penalties assessed in owe-bamaKare are not a tax.  Justice Alito intimated that 'General' Verrilli would be back on Day #2 to argue that the penalties assessed are taxes.  Confused?!?  So am I!  'General' Verrilli also referenced various cases inwhich the constitutionality of said assessment, whether they were penalties or taxes.  Justice Scalia took an occasion to scold 'General' Verrilli: 
"Don't do that again (referencing Davis v. Passman).  Because I think that goes too far.  I don't think that's restraining the collection of a tax.  It's restraining the payment of a tax.  You don't want to let that bone go, do you?"
In later stages several associate justices 'ganged-up on' 'General' Verrilli and cornered him concerning welfareRATs and their use of emergency rooms for 'no-cost' health care rather than using health insurance or Medicare.  'General' Verrilli had problems justifying that while owe-bamaKare will raise revenues, the penalties are not some form of taxation. 
    Mr Katsas--at the start of his segment--delved into the conservative side of jursidictional determination.  He used 'Gonzalez v. Thaler' to buttress his argument... much to Justice Sotomayor's consternation.  Justice Brayer made two salient points: 'language is relevant' and '....taxes are the life's blood of government.' 
Justice Sotomayor--in trying to firm up the government's position--suggested that 'it (the owe-bamaKare statute) is jurisdictional except when the Solicitor General waives it.'  In my mind, that seems to put "all the eggs in the government basket!"
Chief Justice Roberts spent time--also in a 'government support' role--trying to convince Mr Katsas that owe-bamaKare mandated insurance purchases, penalties and/or taxes are a 'command.' the Chief Justice is of the opinion that if the commoner does not follow the 'command,' nothing will happen as a consequence.  Mr Katsas argued that:
"....there is a difference between what the law requires and what enforcement consequences happen to you.  This statute (owe-bamaKare) was very deliberately written to separate mandate from penalty in several different ways...."
  The discussion--on exceptions to the mandate; exceptions to the penalties; who is-who isn't--between the Chief Justice, the several Associate Justices and Mr Katsas went on for several pages, and on, and on....
This is the first time I've ever read the text of an on-going Supreme Court case, let alone one as important as the topic-at-hand!  I found it quite informative, in an argumentative way.  I suggest that everyone read the transcripts of the entire 'owe-bamaKare' arguments, no matter which side you come down on.
The long, drawn-out, interrupted arguments are quite tedious to read.  Maybe the audio version--URL also listed below--would be easier to follow.  Due to hearing problems, I haven't tried that yet.
Til Nex'Time....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/26/obamacare-at-the-supreme-court-day-one-rapid-reactions/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday
* http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf
(Davis v. Passman) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/228/
(Gonzalez v. Thaler) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-895/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Injunction_Act_(1867)

This'n'That; March Twenty-Seventh #1; A 4-4 Tie!

Kagan NOT Eligible To Hear ANY obamaKare!
    The United States' Solicitor General is the individual appointed to represent the federal government before the United States Supreme Court.  The Solicitor General is responsible for determing the legal position the federal government will take in actions before said Supreme Court.
    As the "Clown Prince" nominated (and Senate confirmed) Solicitor General, Ms Kagan has never--prior to her term as Solicitor General--tried a case before ANY court, at ANY level, ANYwhere!!  As the owe-bamacRATic Solicitor General, Ms Kagan was instrumental in the formulation of the defense to any EXPECTED cases involving owe-bamaKare.  As such, Ms Kagan is barred from hearing testimony--and participating in the decision--concerning the upcoming/ongoing owebamaKare litigation before the current Supreme Court.
    The website "TulaneLink" has a study of the 'recusal statutes,'
United States Code, Title 28, Section 455:  "Disqualification of Justice, Judge or Magistrate."  The point at which said code applies to Ms Kagan:
 

USC28-455(b)(3):  "Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy"

    Under any interpretation of the aforementioned, Justice Kagan should recuse herself from any involvement--to any degree--in the owe-bamaKare case before the Supreme Court.  If no recusal is forthcoming, her more-than-ample ass should be tossed off the bench!!Til Nex'Time....http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/03/26/elena-kagan-breaks-federal-law-by-hearing-obamacare-case-republicans-silent/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/26/nobody_doubts_how_the_liberal_members_of_the_supreme_court_will_rule
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/recusal_99a.htm
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/26/4367477/kagan-defies-judicial-ethics-and.html

This'n'That; February Seventh #1; A Waste of Oxygen!!

Supreme Court Justices NOT Gods!!
    As Ruth "Buzzy"--er, Bader--Ginsburg has just proven during a visit to Egypt, the United States Supreme Court is NOT made up of 'gods' nor are they infallible!! (Well, she DOES look like Ruth Buzzi!!)  Mrs Ginsburg travelled to Cairo and Alexandria, Egypt in January to meet with that country's judges, law professsors, legal experts and invited guests to discuss the United States Constitution and the American legal system in general.  During her Egyptian visit, Mrs Ginsburg demonstrated distain for the very document she has sworn to uphold, to support and defend.

The REAL Ruth Buzzi

The Impostor

    Justice Ginsburg made the following statements:
*[The Justice advised her audience:] "....to achieve the goals of this revolution and to continue to strive to create a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
*"....the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then in the constitution ....should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor."
    Then Mrs Ginsburg took a 'left turn:'
*"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."
Instead, she pointed toward those countries whose people look to government--as opposed to the Almighty--as the creator of their rights.
*"I might look to the constitution of South Africa.  It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
Mrs Ginsburg then referenced that bastion of freedom and liberty, Canada which enacted their Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982:
*"Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world."
South Africa once was a proud and self-sufficient nation-now, not so much.
South Africa has been on the edge of anarchy for the past two decades.
South Africa has seen over 1,000,000 citizens flee the country since the implementation of 'democracy.'
Canada has been slipping further into socio-fascist 'democracy' for several decades.
Canada's 'democracy' includes 'hate speech' laws which quash or penalize opinions not approved by the ruling authority.
Conservative columnist John Hayward, writing in Human Events, takes us on a 'right turn:'
*"The last thing an Egyptian populace struggling for freedom from the Islamic Muslim Brotherhood needs to hear a paean from a fashinable liberal about ultramodern state charters that enshrine the use of compulsive force in the service of leftist 'positive rights,' such as the right not to be offended."
*"The more fervent muslims trying to turn Egypt into a theocracy are very good at being offended and they love the use of compulsive force to remove the objects of their ire."
*"The Egyptians could use exactly the kind of timeless and powerful ideals laid out by the brilliant framers of the United States Constitution,a document written precisely to thwart the amibitions of 'reformers' who think utopia is just a few trampled individual rights away."
Another turn, even further to the 'right,' is from Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Council as well as Dean, Liberty University School of Law:
*"[Justice] Ginsburg's comments were nothing less than an insult to the venerable document she is commissioned to protect."
*"When given the opportunity to promote American liberty abroad, Justice Ginsburg did just the opposite and pointed Egypt in the direction of progressivism and the liberal agenda."
*"For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least."
*"Justice Ginsburg's comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document."
    It's my guess--if we had conservative federal legislators with balls--that Mrs Ginsburg has opened herself up to impeachment!  Yes, Supreme Court Justices are subject to removal from the bench by impeachment, as demonstrated by the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804.  Justice Chase was acquitted by the Senate and subsequently returned to the bench.
    All this 'talk' about the Supreme Court and it's justices brings a FAR MORE IMPORTANT point to the fore:  With four justices being of advanced age, Ginsburg-78; Scalia-75; Kennedy-75; Breyer-73, the successful Soros purchase of a "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, the Narcissist" second term of rule could potentially put 'The American Dream' in a hole it may NEVER get out of!!   A second term would allow George Soros' choice of nominees to mirror the socio-fascist views of both 'owe-bama' appointees, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.
    Those of conservative mind and thought as well as those quasi-conservative GOP candidates have a lot on their plates going into the nomination process as well as into the general election.  Everyone must pull out all the stops in promoting and advancing the conservative mindset as it relates to the Supreme Court in addition to the upcoming election!!
'Splain to me again why YOU elected this Arschloch?!?
Til Nex'Time....

This'n'That; October Seventh #2; "Geeze" Letter #2

"Geeze-Louise" Lost Her Mind?!?
    Gawd!!  Dorothy "Geeze-Louise" McIntosh Rodham Slaughter seems to get worse by the day!!  She has tunnel vision when it comes to destroying Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and--by extension--his family.  Why is she not exerting the same vigor in exposing and denegrating the "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, The Narcissist's" secret 'death panel,' embedded within the National Security Council.  In an effort to illustrate her hypocrisy, I'm sending the following email, forthwith!
Ms Slaughter;
  Although your actions cry out for denegrating comments, I shall refrain from publishing several 'dandies' I have in mind!  I do have a couple of questions regarding a letter to which you are a signatory, authored by fellow owe-bamacRATic, Earl Blumenauer, of Oregon.
http://blumenauer.house.gov/images/stories/2011/documents/10-05-11_Signed_letter_-_EB_and_LS.pdf
    The aforementioned letter to the Judiciary Committee Chairman states:
"We are deeply concerned with recent reports concerning potential ethics violations by a member of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas."
The letter further states:
"[....] it is essential that the Congress [....] review these allegations to insure the integrity of the Court is not compromised in the eyes of the public."
Still further, the letter states:
"We urge you, as the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee of Jurisdiction, to investigate and hold hearings on the outstanding ethical questions surrounding the Court."
    The entire letter calls into question, the ethics of a single justice in particular, as well as the entire Supreme Court in general.  Given the seemingly insurmountable communistic bent of the "Clown Prince ZERO-bama, The Narcissist's" regime, do you intend to voice the same demand for oversight and transparency to the recently disclosed 'owebamaKare-esque' death panel imbedded within the National Security Council?!? 
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,6254560,full.story
Given that 'immediate death, maiming or severe injury' are far more serious, my question to you seems closer to the ethics point than Mr Blumenauer's letter to the Judiciary Committee; agree?!?
I await--with bated breath--your justification to your constituency.
/s/
Justin Case
usruck@abcde.com
[My true name, address and email]
I urge all who think along the same lines, copy this email to their individual representatives as well as their two senators, again-forthwith!
Til Nex'Time....
http://www.louise.house.gov/images/stories/Judicial_Conference_Letter_Final_9.29.11.pdf
http://blumenauer.house.gov/images/stories/2011/documents/10-05-11_Signed_letter_-_EB_and_LS.pdf

This'n'That; October Third #1; Schumer, Slaughter Letter

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.